California Bill Would Create Legal Liability for Some Independent Journalists, Critics Warn

On April 13, 2026, California's Assembly Judiciary Committee voted 11-2 to advance Assembly Bill 2624, a measure officially titled "Privacy for immigration support services providers" [1]. Within hours, the bill had a second, unofficial name: the "Stop Nick Shirley Act" — a label coined by Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, who called it "completely unconstitutional" and "clearly targeting citizen journalists" [2].

The bill's author, Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta of Oakland, has rejected that characterization. "AB 2624 doesn't stop journalism or fraud investigations," Bonta said. "It stops bad-faith actors from doxxing workers serving immigrants with proven intent to threaten or incite violence" [3].

The clash over AB 2624 has become the latest front in a broader national argument about independent online journalism, government fraud, immigration policy, and the First Amendment. The stakes are real on both sides: immigration service workers have faced documented death threats and harassment campaigns [3], while independent reporters fear the bill's penalties could be weaponized against anyone who publishes footage embarrassing to politically connected organizations [2].

What the Bill Actually Says

AB 2624's text, as amended on April 9, 2026, creates two distinct legal frameworks [1]:

An address confidentiality program. Immigration support services providers, their employees, and volunteers who face threats or harassment can apply to the California Secretary of State for a substitute address on public records. Applicants must provide documentation — either a workplace violence restraining order or a sworn statement describing specific threats — and demonstrate the threats occurred within one year of their application. Certifications last four years; volunteer certifications expire six months after the last date of service [1].

Criminal and civil prohibitions on posting personal information. The bill makes it illegal to knowingly post, display, or distribute on the internet or social media the personal information or images of covered individuals — defined as providers, employees, or volunteers at designated immigration support facilities — with specific intent to incite "imminent great bodily harm" or to threaten the individual. It also prohibits soliciting, selling, or trading such information with the same intent [1].

The penalties escalate based on severity. A civil violation carries damages of up to three times actual damages with a $4,000 floor, plus attorney's fees. A misdemeanor violation — posting with intent to threaten — carries fines up to $10,000 and up to one year in county jail. If someone actually suffers physical injury as a result, the crime becomes a felony punishable by up to $50,000 in fines and state prison time [1].

The Exemption That Matters Most

Buried in the bill's text is a provision that has become the fulcrum of the entire debate. Section 6218.19 includes an exemption for persons defined under California Evidence Code Section 1070 — the state's shield law — which protects journalists from being compelled to reveal sources [1][4].

California's shield law, one of the strongest in the country, covers any "publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service" as well as anyone "connected with or employed by a radio or television news reporter or network" [4].

The question is who that definition excludes. A YouTube journalist operating without institutional affiliation — someone like Nick Shirley — does not obviously fall within Evidence Code 1070's categories. The shield law was written decades before social media existed, and while courts have extended First Amendment protections to bloggers and independent online publishers in cases like Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (2014), the Ninth Circuit's ruling in that case addressed defamation standards, not California's specific statutory shield [5].

"In this day and age, with so much important stuff produced by people who are not professionals, it's harder than ever to decide who is a member of the institutional press," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh observed in the context of the Obsidian case [5]. That ambiguity is precisely the gap critics say AB 2624 exploits.

Who Is Nick Shirley?

Nick Shirley is a 24-year-old self-described independent journalist from Utah who built his following on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). He started making prank videos in high school, took a two-year break for a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mission in Chile, and returned in 2023 to pivot toward political content [6].

Shirley first attracted national attention in December 2025, when he released a 43-minute video alleging $110 million in fraud at federally-funded daycare centers in Minnesota, many operated by Somali Americans. The video racked up 131 million views on X and 2.5 million on YouTube [6]. Vice President J.D. Vance reposted it, calling Shirley someone who "has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer prizes." Elon Musk amplified the claims. The Trump administration froze child care funding to Minnesota in response [6].

But the accuracy of Shirley's Minnesota reporting came under scrutiny. The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth and Families sent investigators to nine of the ten sites he featured. They found children present at all but one — which state officials said had not yet opened for business at the time of Shirley's visit [6]. A CNN camera crew filming alongside Shirley captured caregivers dropping off children in the background of his shots [6]. One daycare manager said Shirley had visited outside regular operating hours [6].

Media law professor Jane Kirtley of the University of Minnesota noted that Shirley's videos "have a narrative" but "spend little to no time looking for the other side" [6].

Shirley's track record also includes a prior video from Kyiv, Ukraine, where he implied American tax dollars funded luxury cars and a Ferris wheel — claims that were not substantiated [6].

In March 2026, Shirley turned his attention to California, releasing a 40-minute video alleging $170 million in fraud across hospice and daycare operations in Los Angeles and San Diego counties. The video garnered over 42 million views on X [7][8]. He identified a four-block radius containing 42 registered hospices and visited multiple locations that appeared to be empty buildings or residential homes [8].

Source: CMS Medicare Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2025CSV

The fraud allegations, regardless of their individual accuracy, landed in a context where California hospice spending has grown rapidly. Los Angeles County now accounts for roughly 10% of all U.S. home healthcare expenditures [8], and the state has acknowledged systemic problems. Governor Newsom's office stated in March 2026 that "California has been cracking down on hospice fraud for years — with a statewide task force, a standing moratorium on new providers, and aggressive enforcement that's already revoked 280+ licenses and put hundreds more under investigation" [9].

On April 14, the Deseret News reported that California had pressed charges in connection with hospice fraud, and a U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform letter to Newsom requested documents related to the state's oversight of federally funded hospice programs [10].

The Supporters' Case

Proponents of AB 2624 point to a documented rise in threats against immigration service workers. The bill's legislative findings state that "individuals providing support services to the immigrant community have become increasingly subjected to violent threats, harassment, and intimidation" [1].

The threat environment is not hypothetical. Immigration attorneys, nonprofit workers, and volunteers have reported doxxing campaigns, courthouse targeting, online harassment, and coordinated death threats — incidents that supporters say have "risen to alarming levels in 2025" amid the current federal administration's immigration enforcement actions [3].

Bonta's office frames the bill as an extension of existing California privacy protections. The state already operates address confidentiality programs for reproductive health care providers and gender-affirming care providers — categories that were added through similar legislation in recent years [1]. AB 2624 uses the same statutory framework, applying it to a new class of workers facing comparable threats.

Supporters also emphasize the intent requirement. The bill does not criminalize filming or reporting per se — it targets the posting of personal information "with the intent to incite imminent great bodily harm" or to enable violent crime [1]. Under this reading, a journalist publishing footage of an apparently fraudulent daycare would not be liable unless the publication was made with the specific intent to cause violence against the workers depicted.

The Critics' Case

Critics, led by DeMaio, argue that the bill's "intent" language is the problem, not the solution. "By tying enforcement to 'intent,' the law allows claims of feeling 'threatened' to trigger penalties," DeMaio said. He contends that "existing laws already address threats, harassment, and intimidation. Those protections are not new" [2].

The concern is structural. Under the bill's civil provisions, a covered individual can send a written demand to anyone who has posted their personal information or image, requiring removal within a specified period. Failure to comply after receiving such a demand creates liability — injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorney's fees [1]. Critics argue this effectively creates a private takedown mechanism that could be used against journalists who publish footage of publicly visible misconduct at taxpayer-funded facilities.

The cost asymmetry is significant. A well-funded nonprofit or advocacy organization could issue takedown demands against an independent journalist who, even if ultimately vindicated, would need to hire legal counsel to respond. While California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16) allows defendants to seek early dismissal of meritless lawsuits arising from protected speech, anti-SLAPP motions still require litigation — and the legal fees that come with it [11].

David Tangipa, a Republican assemblyman, called the bill "unconstitutional" and "anti-First Amendment legislation" [12]. The constitutional argument rests on a line of cases establishing that independent online publishers receive the same First Amendment protections as institutional media. In Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, the Ninth Circuit held that the negligence standard for private-figure defamation claims applies equally to bloggers and traditional reporters [5]. If AB 2624's penalties can reach independent publishers who lack Evidence Code 1070 protection but not institutional media who possess it, critics argue, the bill creates a content-neutral restriction that discriminates based on speaker identity — a framework the Supreme Court has viewed skeptically.

The Family Connection

One detail has drawn particular scrutiny from critics: Mia Bonta is married to Rob Bonta, California's Attorney General [13]. The Attorney General's office has enforcement authority over many of the state programs that Shirley's reporting has targeted.

Critics, including DeMaio, have characterized this as a conflict of interest, suggesting the bill serves to shield programs under the AG's purview from outside scrutiny [2]. Bonta's office has not directly addressed the family connection in public statements about the bill, instead focusing on the legislation's anti-doxxing purpose [3].

No public evidence has established that the Attorney General's office had any role in drafting or promoting AB 2624. But the overlap has fueled skepticism among the bill's opponents about its true motivation.

Comparable Frameworks Elsewhere

AB 2624 is not without precedent. Several jurisdictions have enacted or considered laws addressing the intersection of online publishing and personal safety:

The UK's Online Safety Act (2023) imposes duties on platforms to remove illegal content including threats and harassment, with enforcement by the communications regulator Ofcom. It targets platforms rather than individual publishers, a structural difference from AB 2624's approach [14].

New York's influencer disclosure laws focus on transparency in commercial content rather than investigative reporting, requiring paid partnerships to be disclosed. These laws operate in a different legal space than AB 2624 [15].

Existing California law already criminalizes doxxing in certain contexts. Penal Code Section 653.2 makes it a misdemeanor to electronically distribute personal identifying information with intent to cause fear, and Section 422 covers criminal threats. Critics of AB 2624 argue that these statutes already cover the conduct the bill targets, making the new legislation either redundant or — more concerning — designed to reach conduct that existing law does not penalize because it is constitutionally protected [2].

What Happens Next

AB 2624 still requires passage by the full Assembly, then the state Senate, and finally Governor Newsom's signature. The Secretary of State would begin accepting applications for the address confidentiality program on April 1, 2027, if the bill becomes law [1].

The bill's path forward will test several unresolved legal questions. Can California create a class-based privacy regime that effectively distinguishes between institutional and independent journalists? Will the "intent to incite imminent great bodily harm" standard survive First Amendment scrutiny under the Brandenburg v. Ohio incitement framework? And who, in practice, will bear the litigation costs when takedown demands are disputed?

For immigration service workers who have received death threats, the bill offers a concrete protective mechanism. For independent journalists and citizen watchdogs, it introduces new legal risk tied to the publication of information about publicly funded programs.

The 11-2 committee vote suggests the bill has strong Democratic support in a legislature where Democrats hold supermajorities. Whether it can withstand the constitutional challenges that will almost certainly follow its passage is a separate question — one that may ultimately be decided not in Sacramento, but in federal court.