California Proposes Regulations for Private Attorneys General Act of 2004

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) announced proposed regulations for the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), which are open for public comment until March 23, 2026. The proposed regulations aim to standardize PAGA notice requirements, increase the opportunity for employers to cure PAGA violations, increase LWDA involvement in PAGA settlements, curb boilerplate notices, and govern high-volume filers.

These proposals build on and are consistent with the recent 2024 legislative reform to PAGA, which marked the first major reform of the law since its inception in 2004. The 2024 reforms instituted a standing requirement for all underlying Labor Code violation claims, expanded the types of violations that can be “cured” before or soon after litigation, and strengthened the LWDA’s oversight role.

What’s in the Proposed Regulations?

Requiring Standardized, Detailed PAGA Notices

The LWDA noted in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the PAGA notices it receives “in many cases fail to satisfy the purpose of the statutory notice requirement.” To address these common shortcomings, the proposed regulations would standardize the notice for employees or their counsel to submit claims to the LWDA. This form notice would include several key categories: the employee’s job duties; the Labor Code sections the employee is alleging the employer violated; a “short and plain” statement of facts and theories; and the penalty section under which recovery is sought. Requiring this information would allow the LWDA to determine the allegations or do further investigation and would preclude problematic notices that merely “repeat the same or similar allegations in a conclusory, boilerplate, or frivolous manner.”

Reining in High-Frequency Filers

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also identified the issue of “high-frequency” and “vexatious” PAGA filers, citing that, from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, just five law firms filed almost one-quarter of PAGA notices, with three law firms filing on average more than one PAGA notice per day.

For “high-frequency filers” (defined as any attorney or law firm filing 200 or more PAGA notices in a 12-month period), these proposed requirements include that the attorney or firm must attach a special cover letter to each notice disclosing high‑frequency status and that the employee must personally certify they reviewed and agree with the allegations.

For “vexatious filers” (defined as any person or attorney who has repeatedly filed PAGA notices that do not comply with legal requirements, including filing notices without sufficient facts), the proposed requirements include a pre-filing screening order — meaning that the LWDA will review each proposed PAGA notice filed by the vexatious filer, determine whether it complies with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and then provide notice by certified mail as to the determination. A filer would have notice and opportunity to be heard before receiving a designation as “vexations” and may petition to have the designation removed, but only after at least six months of the designation.

Clarity for Cure Procedures

The proposed regulations provide clarity and additional framework for the small employer and wage claim cure processes. For the small employer cure process, the proposed regulations clarify the timeline for and contents of cure proposals, describe the records and notice required for a cure conference and instruct employees how to dispute the sufficiency of a cure completion determination. The regulations also provide guidance for wage statement cures, including describing the information an employer must include with a wage statement cure notice.

Settlement Oversight and Notice

The proposed regulations would change how PAGA suits are settled. Of particular note, the proposed regulations would prohibit adding any alleged PAGA violations to a PAGA notice during the settlement process or after the parties have reached a settlement. The employee must submit a notice of the settlement to both the LWDA and all other PAGA claimants with actions pending against the same employer. Employees in overlapping cases could object to the settlement to the LWDA after the notice from the settling employees. The settling employer must verify the list of overlapping actions identified by the settling employee. The notice to the LWDA must provide the LWDA at least 45 days to review the settlement before any approval hearing.

What’s Next

The proposed regulations are open for public comment through March 23, 2026. A public hearing, which will accept written and oral comments, has been requested but not yet scheduled. We will monitor next steps as they arise.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.