New Laws SB 1159 & AB 1821 Provide Extended CPRA Processing Time and Protection from AI-Generated Requests

10.19.2026

If your agency is buried with numerous lengthy California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests written by a chatbot, these new laws may provide you some relief. On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 1159 and Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1821 which take effect on January 1, 2027. The new laws clarify that an AI system is not a “person” who can make a request under the CPRA, increase determination timelines, and expand the types of circumstances under which agencies may exercise their right to an extension of the standard response time.

The Legislature’s stated concern in SB 1159 warns that AI systems can submit thousands or even millions of automated records requests, diverting limited public resources away from the needs of real constituents. Similarly, AB 1821 aims to balance the right of the public to access public records with the reality of the strain placed on public agencies to timely process CPRA requests while providing a variety of other services. Below, we explain what SB 1159 does and does not do, how AB 1821 will impact standard CPRA timelines, and how local education agencies can prepare for these changes.

SB 1159

SB 1159 reaches several of California’s core transparency and governance laws. In addition to the CPRA, it amends the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the California Coastal Act. While the changes to the Brown Act and the other amended statutes deserve their own discussion, this alert focuses only on the CPRA, where most of our education clients are feeling the impacts of AI.

AI is not a “person” under the CPRA

The CPRA gives “any person” the right to inspect and obtain copies of public records. The statute already defines “person” to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association. (Gov. Code § 7920.520.)

SB 1159 amends that definition to clearly exclude AI systems. Under the new language, “person,” “interested person,” “member of the public,” and similar terms do not include artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, robots, or other nonhuman entities, whether physical or digital. The law defines “artificial intelligence” broadly, as any engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit and implicit objectives, infer from its inputs how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.

In practical terms, the CPRA’s duties run to people and organizations, not to machines. An AI agent or automated bot acting on its own is not a “person” entitled to make a request. That gives agencies a statutory basis to decline to treat a purely machine-driven submission as a CPRA request that triggers the corresponding legal obligations. SB 1159 permits local agencies to use a “disclosure verification tool” to determine if AI generated a request. At the time of publishing this alert, our organization is unaware of publicly available tools available for this purpose.

What SB 1159 does not do

Notwithstanding the above, a natural person may use AI, autonomous agents, or robots to assist them in their communications with an agency. The law also distinguishes between prohibited AI and permitted “assistive technology” used to assist persons with disabilities. These protections apply so long as the volume and frequency of the person’s engagement “are reasonably consistent with ordinary participation by a natural person.” Thus, a CPRA request is not invalid simply because a member of the public used an AI tool to prepare it. Instead, SB 1159 targets automated, high-volume activity that no natural person could accomplish without these AI tools.

AB 1821

AB 1821 provides more direct relief to agencies for all CPRA requests by extending response times and providing for more situations that would enable public agencies to exercise their right to an extension.

Currently, within 10 calendar days of receipt of a CPRA request, public agencies are required to determine whether the request seeks disclosable public records in the agency’s possession and then promptly inform the requester of the determination. If the request seeks disclosable records, the agency must also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available to the requester. (Gov. Code § 7922.535(a).) Under six defined “unusual circumstances,” the agency may exercise its right to extend this deadline by no more than 14 days. (Gov. Code § 7922.535(b)- (c).)

AB 1821 extends these timelines by simply changing the standard from calendar days to business days for both the 10-day initial timeline and the 14-day extension. With these new timelines, the CPRA affords public agencies more time and more consistent access to resources to conduct a search for records and prepare a response. Currently, agencies’ access to personnel and resources can vary significantly depending on the timing of holidays or weekends during the 10-calendar-day window. For example, a request received on a Friday before a three-day weekend would still be due ten days later on the second following Monday, even though the agency would be closed for half of the 10-day timeline.

This law limits the chances that a poorly timed request will negatively impact an agency’s ability to provide a timely response, while generally providing more time for public agencies to balance their obligations pursuant to the CPRA with their numerous other duties and services to students.

We will continue to monitor how SB 1159 and AB 1821 are applied and will share updates as guidance develops. If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact your regular AALRR counsel or the authors of this Alert.