What California AB 871 Actually Requires
California is close to requiring financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse not just to Adult Protective Services and local law enforcement, but to two federal systems as well.
Assembly Bill 871, authored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, amends Welfare and Institutions Code § 15630.1. It passed the Assembly 69–0 in January 2026 and was before the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee as of its most recent hearing in June 2026. If enacted, mandated reporters — meaning all officers and employees of financial institutions — would have to file a report with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) and the Federal Trade Commission within two business days of observing or suspecting elder financial abuse, alongside the existing APS and law enforcement reporting channels. Institutions would also be required to provide annual training to mandated-reporter employees on how to complete these reports, and to share IC3 reporting information with the affected senior citizen when abuse is discovered within 48 hours of a transaction.
The bill does not create new civil liability for a failure to file an IC3 or FTC report — that failure is explicitly carved out of EADACPA’s civil penalty structure. That is a deliberate contrast with the bank-liability approach in SB 278, which Governor Newsom vetoed in 2024 over concerns that mandatory transaction holds and new tort exposure would create more problems than they solved. The “how do we avoid another SB 278” question comes up in most conversations about this space, and AB 871 is a visible answer to it.
The reporting burden runs in both directions. If AB 871 is enacted, APS agencies and local law enforcement will start receiving reports that also went to IC3 and the FTC — two federal systems most local agencies don’t have an established workflow to query or coordinate with. A national survey of elder-abuse multidisciplinary teams published by the DOJ’s Elder Justice Initiative earlier this year found respondents asking specifically for cross-training so team members understand each other’s roles. Training for the reporting side of this has gotten far more attention than training for the receiving side — that capacity gap is where AB 871 is likely to be felt first.
AB 871’s operative date, if enacted, is January 1, 2028, so there is no immediate compliance deadline attached to any of this. Status as of its last confirmed committee hearing (June 2026): passed the Assembly, pending before the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee. Check leginfo.legislature.ca.gov directly for the bill’s current status before treating anything here as final.
If this is your family:
If your parent’s bank flags a suspicious transaction, don’t be surprised if they mention filing a report with a federal cybercrime unit (IC3) in addition to calling local authorities — some institutions are already doing this ahead of any law requiring it. It doesn’t replace contacting your local Adult Protective Services office or the police; it’s an additional step, not a substitute one.
Sources:
AB 871 (Stefani) — bill text and status: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, AB 871: sjud.senate.ca.gov
Assembly Banking and Finance Committee analysis, AB 871: abnk.assembly.ca.gov