|
|
Last Modified on Oct 21, 2026
Smart Locks, Cameras, and Domestic Violence: California’s 2026 Connected-Device Rules
By Kent Tierney | Tierney Law Group, P.C.
A Pleasanton or Danville house is often full of devices someone else can still operate: the lock, the garage, the cameras, the thermostat, the alarm. Beginning January 1, 2026, California gives survivors a specific way to ask the company that controls the account to cut off that access. The rules are in Business and Professions Code sections 22948.30 through 22948.37, added by Senate Bill 50 (2025). The same bill amended Family Code section 6320 so that disturbing the peace expressly includes conduct carried out through internet-connected devices.
This process is not a substitute for a restraining order, and it is not a division of property in a divorce. It is a request to the account manager, backed by civil remedies if the company does not comply.
What Devices Are Covered
A “connected device” is generally any device that can connect to the internet, directly or indirectly, and has an IP address or Bluetooth address, or that allows someone to obtain data from it or send commands to it remotely. A phone app used to operate the device is part of the coverage. The statute excludes peripheral devices that depend solely on a primary device, and devices that are more than 10 years old or no longer supported by the account manager.
The Device Protection Request
A survivor, or a designated representative, may submit a device protection request. A criminal conviction or other court determination is not required. A complete request includes verification of the covered act (for example, a signed affidavit, a protective order, or a police report), verification that the survivor has exclusive legal possession or control of the device, identification of the devices, and identification of the person whose access should be terminated. The company may not charge a fee, require the other person’s approval, or deny the request because the account is in arrears.
Within two business days after receiving a complete request, the account manager must either terminate the other person’s access or inform the survivor of a reset method that removes all account holders and does not require the survivor to have a password, PIN, or other credential. The company may not notify the perpetrator. After access is terminated, the survivor is not responsible for charges the other person incurs.
Enforcement and Exclusions
The Attorney General, local public prosecutors, and an injured person may bring an action. A court may grant injunctive relief and impose a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per violation for each connected device, and a prevailing plaintiff recovers costs and attorney’s fees. Providers subject to the federal Safe Connections Act (which has its own line-separation process for phone plans) and vehicle remote-access systems governed by the Vehicle Code are excluded from these rules.
The Family Code Change
Family Code section 6320 now provides that disturbing the peace of the other party, including coercive control, may be committed through connected devices. That matters when a survivor seeks a domestic violence restraining order based on remote surveillance or harassment through household technology.
A practical caution: the device statute addresses account access. It does not change ownership of the home or the devices, and it does not authorize one spouse to damage property or lock a co-owner out of a residence without a court order or other lawful basis.
Talk With a Pleasanton Family Law Attorney
If you have questions about domestic violence, exclusive use of a home, or connected devices in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, or elsewhere in the East Bay, the attorneys at Tierney Law Group can help you evaluate your options.
Contact Tierney Law Group at (925) 362-3364 or [email protected] to schedule a consultation.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Statutes can change; confirm current law with counsel before relying on a device protection request.
