PAGA
LWDA Modifies Proposed PAGA Regulations and Reopens Comment Period
On August 3, 2026, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) posted modified text for its proposed regulations implementing the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), together with an addendum to its initial statement of reasons and additional documents added to the rulemaking file. The modifications revise 14 sections of the February proposal, most notably the definition of a high-frequency filer, the treatment of settlement-related amendments to PAGA notices, and the limits on pre-litigation releases. The Agency reopened a written comment period on the modifications that closes August 18, 2026.
Background
PAGA lets an aggrieved employee file a notice with LWDA alleging Labor Code violations and, after an administrative review period, pursue civil penalties on the state’s behalf. The Agency draws its rulemaking authority from Labor Code section 2699, subdivision (u), and the notice, review, and cure steps rest largely on Labor Code section 2699.3. The proposed regulations would add a new chapter 9 to the California Code of Regulations, title 8, implementing and making more specific these statutory procedures.
The Agency says the rules respond to filing practices it has observed, including boilerplate notices filed at high volume and amendments used to sweep new claims into settlements. This rulemaking is at the modified-text stage: notice was published February 6, 2026, the first comment period closed March 23, 2026, and a hearing was held April 9, 2026. Proposed regulations are not law; they take effect only if the Agency adopts them and the Office of Administrative Law approves them.
What the Regulations Would Do
The proposed rules would require PAGA notices to be filed electronically through the online PAGA filing portal using a standardized form, and would spell out what each notice must contain: the parties’ names, dates and location of employment, the specific Labor Code sections alleged, and a short, plain statement of the facts and theories supporting each violation. Proposed California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 17420 states that conclusory or generalized allegations that merely restate the law would not be sufficient.
The proposal also includes filer-conduct safeguards. As modified, proposed section 17415 would define a “high-frequency filer” as an attorney filing 100 or more, or a law firm filing 200 or more, PAGA notices in a 12-month period, and would require such filers to include a cover letter and an employee certification with each notice. It would separately define a “non-compliant filer” and, after notice and an opportunity to respond, allow the Agency to impose a prefiling screening order under which proposed notices are reviewed before they are accepted for filing.
The filing would establish standardized PAGA notice requirements and create heightened safeguards, including certifications and prefiling screening, for attorneys and firms the Agency designates as high-frequency or non-compliant filers.
Amendments, Cure Procedures, and Settlement Review
The proposed regulations would also govern amended notices, the employer cure process, and settlement review. Proposed section 17420.5 would impose heightened pleading requirements when an employee amends a notice to add new violations or parties in connection with a proposed settlement, an approach the Agency ties to deterring reverse-auction practices. Separate subchapters would set out cure conferences, wage-statement cure steps under Labor Code section 226, and deadlines running in periods such as 30, 45, and 65 days.
For settlements, proposed section 17461 would require parties to submit a proposed PAGA settlement to the Agency and give it at least 45 days to review before a court approval hearing, along with notice to other plaintiffs with pending actions against the same employer. Under proposed section 17462, a pre-litigation settlement generally could not release PAGA claims outside the statutory cure procedures. Written comments on the modifications are due to the Agency by August 18, 2026.
What Changed from the February Proposal
The notice of modifications identifies changes to 14 sections (proposed sections 17400, 17410, 17415, 17420, 17420.5, 17424, 17430, 17440, 17450, 17450.5, 17451, 17460, 17461, and 17462) and adds an addendum to the initial statement of reasons, with Appendices G–T, to the rulemaking file. The key changes:
- High-frequency filer threshold. The February text set a single trigger: 200 or more PAGA notices in the preceding 12 months, whether filed by an attorney or a law firm. The modified text splits the definition: 100 notices for an individual attorney, 200 for a law firm. The cover-letter and employee-certification requirements carry forward.
- “Vexatious filer” becomes “non-compliant filer.” The label changes (dropping the echo of the vexatious-litigant terminology in Code of Civil Procedure section 391), but the structure remains: designation after notice and an opportunity to respond, followed by a prefiling screening order under which proposed notices are reviewed before acceptance.
- Settlement-related amendments. The February text flatly barred amending a notice to add violations as part of, or after reaching, a proposed settlement in a pending civil action. The modified text replaces the ban with heightened pleading requirements for amendments adding violations or parties in connection with a settlement. Proposed section 17450.5, the parallel workplace-safety provision, is also among the modified sections.
- Pre-litigation releases. The February text barred any pre-litigation release of PAGA claims outright. As modified, proposed section 17462 generally bars such releases outside the statutory cure procedures, leaving room for resolutions reached through the cure process.
- Everything else. The remaining modifications touch the scope provision, portal-filing and notice-content rules, Labor Commissioner citations, small-employer cure proposals, wage-statement cures, the workplace-safety track, and court-filing and settlement submissions (which keep the 45-day review period and notice to other pending plaintiffs). Unchanged: the $75 filing fee (section 17411), the 33-day employer response window (section 17421), and the cure conference and hearing procedures (sections 17431–17439.5).
What This Means for You
LWDA has posted modified text for its proposed PAGA regulations and reopened a short comment period that closes August 18, 2026. The modifications adjust rather than restructure the February package: the high-frequency filer threshold drops to 100 notices for individual attorneys, the “vexatious filer” label becomes “non-compliant filer,” and flat bans on settlement-related amendments and pre-litigation releases give way to more flexible standards. The regulations are proposed and would apply only if adopted and approved.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.