Steve Bennett

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

 The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.