By CalMatters Staff There are roughly 1,000 new laws hitting California starting the first day of 2025.   In all, lawmakers passed about 1,200 bills in 2024 and Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed 200 of those. And that’s the bureaucratic funnel in a nutshell.    Most of these incoming laws are technical, fix previous laws or are narrow in scope. But there are some that affect lots of Californians, or are just plain interesting.    CalMatters reporters describe some of the noteworthy laws taking effect Jan. 1. Dive in to stay informed about the changes that matter to you.  Editor’s note: CalMatters’ review of some of the new laws taking effect in 2025 was split into two parts. Read about some of the other new laws published in Friday’s edition.  New law could help tenants facing eviction stay in their homes  Tenant advocates suffered a big defeat this fall when California voters decided against expanding cities’ ability to limit rent increases. But a state law set to take effect Jan. 1 will give renters facing eviction a little more breathing room.  The law doubles the time tenants have to respond after receiving an eviction notice from five business days to ten. Lawyers who work with renters say that what may seem like a minor procedural change could make a big difference in allowing people to stay in their homes.   Tenants who are served an eviction notice and don’t respond in writing within the legal timeframe can lose their case by default, potentially incurring financial penalties and a black mark on their record that affects their future ability to obtain housing. That’s true even if a tenant has a valid legal defense – for example, if their landlord increased the rent above state limits or refused to fix problems like lack of heat or broken door locks. About 40% of California tenants lose their cases this way, researchers have estimated.  “Five days has never been enough for a tenant to find legal assistance and try to decipher the complaint filed against them, find out what kind of defenses they have, fill out the paperwork and make it to court,” Lorraine López, a senior attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, told CalMatters earlier this fall.  Access to legal services varies widely across California. San Francisco guarantees legal representation to any tenant facing eviction, and in other cities like Oakland and Los Angeles, robust networks of pro-bono lawyers help renters file responses. But Californians who live in so-called “legal deserts” – often in rural areas – must travel many miles to meet with an attorney.  Tenants with lawyers are less likely to get locked out of their homes, some studies have shown – though fewer than 5% of renters in eviction cases nationwide have legal help, compared with more than 80% of landlords, the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel estimates.  Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, the new law also offers something for landlords, who generally like eviction cases to move faster. It limits the amount of time tenant lawyers can take to file certain motions alleging errors in a landlord’s complaint. Landlord representatives said lawyers would use those motions to drag out cases unnecessarily.  The change convinced the state’s largest landlord lobby, the California Apartment Association, to remain neutral on the law while legislators debated it. Some local property owner groups still opposed the law.  “The longer these things take, the more expensive it is (for landlords) and the more rent is lost,” said Daniel Bornstein, an attorney who represents property owners.  Bosses can’t make you attend anti-union meetings  Starting Jan. 1, California employers won’t be able to require workers to attend any meetings related to their political or religious views — or how their bosses feel about unions.   That’s according to a new law, Senate Bill 399, that is one of the most prominent of the usual wave of new workplace laws businesses are expected to follow each year.   The legislation came as the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority sought to support a rising wave of unionization across California and the nation.   The law bans mandatory workplace meetings in which the employer discusses their “opinion about religious or political matters,” the latter of which is defined to include the decision on whether to join a union. Workers cannot be disciplined for refusing to attend such a meeting under SB 399.   The new law’s proponents, including the California Labor Federation, say such meetings can intimidate workers out of exercising their right to unionize, though retaliation from employersis already illegal.   Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce opposed the new law, arguing it would infringe on employers’ right to free speech and ability to discuss the effects of laws or regulation on their industries. The law includes exceptions for employees, such as those working for political parties, whose job includes talking about politics.  California is joining nine other mostly Democratic states that have recently banned these so-called captive audience meetings. The law’s passage was a victory for the labor movement as it braces for the Trump administration next month.  Under President Joe Biden, the National Labor Relations Board has also sought to curb the meetings, which for decades prior boards have generally allowed as long as employers aren’t threatening workers or withholding benefits from those who support a union.   In November, the board ruled in a case involving Amazon that captive-audience meetings violate the federal law guaranteeing workers the right to unionize, but many labor experts expect the decision to be overturned once President-elect Donald Trump takes office. In that case, California’s ban on the meetings would still apply, though employers have been challenging other states’ captive audience laws in court.   Other new employment laws that go into effect Jan. 1 include:  An increase to the minimum wage, from $16 an hour to $16.50. Voters in November defeated an effort to further increase the wage to $18, but current law automatically adjusts the minimum wage during inflationary periods.   Employers will also be required to allow workers to use their time off more flexibly. Under AB 2123, they can no longer force employees to use as much as two weeks of vacation time before taking paid family leave, the state program that gives workers some benefits for taking time off to care for a newborn child or sick family member.   And under AB 2499 workers can use sick time to perform jury duty. That new law also expands the reasons workers can take unpaid, protected leave when they are victims of crime.   Some changes will apply to specific industries. Farmworkers will be allowed to use paid sick days to avoid working outside during periods of wildfire smoke, extreme heat or flooding. Performers and entertainers will have the right to refuse studios and production companies using AI-generated “digital replicas” of their images or voices to reproduce or replace their work. In July 2025, domestic workers who are employed by house-cleaner or nanny agencies to work in clients’ private homes will be subject for the first time to workplace safety laws.  Teens in treatment gain new protections  Beginning Jan. 1, hundreds of state-licensed residential treatment centers for children and youth up to age 21 operating in California must comply with a new law that brings greater transparency — particularly when they use restraints and seclusion rooms.   After restraining a youth, or putting them in a seclusion room, the facility is required to provide a report to both the youth and to their parent or guardian. The report must include a description of the incident; which staff members were involved; the rationale behind their actions; how long the incident lasted; and other details.  A copy of the report must be provided to the California Department of Social Services within seven days. The department is required to review reported incidents for any health and safety violations and, if needed, investigate the incident.  Another provision of the law, requiring the department to make data about these incidents publicly available on its website, doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2026. Then, parents or guardians weighing the difficult decision to send their children to these facilities can access information about any potential misuse of restraints and seclusion rooms.   One of the most widely-recognized champions of the bipartisan measure as it advanced through the Legislature was Paris Hilton. In April, the hotel heiress, socialite and media personality visited the state Capitol to advocate on behalf of the legislation, and recount the physical and emotional abuse she experienced while living at youth treatment centers in California and other states.   A vocal critic of the “troubled teen industry,” Hilton praised the passage of the law in August.  “For too long, these facilities have operated without adequate oversight, leaving vulnerable youth at risk,” Hilton said in a statement. “I hope our state is the standard for transparency and accountability in these facilities moving forward.”  In 2021, California prohibited sending troubled youth, including foster children, to out-of-state, for-profit treatment centers after reports of rampant abuse. As an alternative, youths can be sent to short-term therapeutic facilities licensed by the state’s social services department. A year later, California passed a law to fund crisis residential treatment facilities for children on Medi-Cal.  New law blocks fines for declined ATM withdrawals  Californians who try to withdraw money but don’t have enough in their bank accounts won’t fall deeper into a financial hole from having to pay a fine, thanks to a new state law.  The law covers instances in which banks charge customers when their withdrawals are declined instantaneously, such as at ATMs, because of insufficient funds. It takes effect Jan. 1.  Assembly Bill 2017 applies to banks and credit unions that are regulated by the state; Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in September. The bill was backed by several consumer advocacy groups, including the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and East Bay Community Law Center, which called penalties for insufficient funds “junk fees” and said getting rid of them will protect financially vulnerable consumers.   Tim Grayson, the bill’s author, said when he introduced it in May that it would “help prevent fee creep in the banking industry.” Grayson, a Democrat from Concord, is an incoming senator who was in the Assembly through the end of the 2024 legislative session.  The Consumer Federation of America, a sponsor of the bill, said common charges for insufficient funds are $30 or more.  The California Credit Union League, which at first opposed the bill and said credit unions “do not charge these types of fees,” eventually took a neutral position. But the state Department of Financial Protection & Innovation has found that many credit unions do have income from insufficient-fund charges; a 2022 state law tasked the agency with collecting data from banks and credit unions about their fees.  The law by Grayson is similar to a rule by the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau — the federal watchdog agency that’s in President-elect Donald Trump’s crosshairs — that applies to federally chartered banks.   In line with the growing nationwide push to eliminate junk fees, Newsom also signed another bill addressing overdraft fees: Senate Bill 1075 will limit credit-union fees for insufficient funds to $14 unless a lower federal limit is set. That becomes law in 2026. And he signed Assembly Bill 2863, which will make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions and requires companies to get consent from their customers before charging them to renew or when a free trial ends. It goes into effect July 1.  Most medical debt can no longer hurt your credit score under new law  Everyday people across the country skip medical care because of cost. Those who do seek medical help may end up with a balance they can’t pay off. That debt can hurt people’s credit scores, resulting in long-term financial burdens.  Starting Jan. 1, a new state law will prohibit health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debt information to credit agencies. That means unpaid medical bills should no longer show up on people’s credit reports, which consumer advocacy groups say is a boon for patients with debt.  Here’s why: While the law will not forgive someone’s debt, by keeping it off credit reports, it might provide some reassurance that a hospital stay or trip to urgent care won’t later affect their credit standing. Lower credit scores usually result in higher interest rates and make it harder for people to qualify for a home rental, a car loan or even employment.  During legislative hearings, the law’s author, Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, contended that because people don’t choose to have a medical emergency or illness, this type of debt should not count against them. Supporters also argued that medical debt is more prone to inaccuracies because of billing mistakes by health providers and insurers.  The main three credit bureaus – TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — stopped reporting medical debt under $500 in 2023. But most people with medical debt owe far more than that. The national average for medical balance is $3,100, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In California, an estimated 38% of residents carry some type of medical debt; that figure climbs to more than half for low-income residents, according to the California Health Care Foundation.   One key caveat is that patients can only take advantage of this law if the debt is owed directly to a medical provider or collection agency, but not when the debt is charged on a medical credit card or a general credit card.   This new law follows similar ones enacted in a handful of other states, including New York and Colorado. It also mirrors a proposal put forth by the Biden administration to do the same nationwide. However, with a new administration taking over in January, it is unclear whether the federal proposal will go anywhere.   Limón’s office explained that under the law patients have the right to sue a debt collector or provider who reports a medical debt to a credit bureau. Consumers may also choose to file a complaint with the state’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, which has authority over debt collectors. Consumers can also file a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.  The post New laws going into effect in 2025: Part II  appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.