Recommended Free Tools
California AB 483 was proposed to require clear upfront disclosure of early termination fees in certain fixed-term installment contracts and to cap covered fees at 20% of the total contract cost. That is the bill design described in 2025 legislative analyses—not a confirmed statement of current California law. The Senate Judiciary analysis discussed an applicability date of July 1, 2026, but the final enacted text and current implementation are not established here.
Which contracts AB 483 was designed to cover
The committee analyses describe a fixed-term installment contract as a consumer contract for goods or services offered at a deferred price and paid in regular installments over a set period. An early termination fee, in the bill’s terms, is an additional fee charged when a consumer elects to end access and stop installment payments before that period ends.
That is different from simply failing to make scheduled installment payments. The proposal addressed a consumer choosing to terminate early, rather than every breach or unpaid balance under a contract. See the Assembly policy committee analysis and the Senate Judiciary analysis.
What the amended Senate version described
The Senate Judiciary analysis of an amended version said that, for contracts entered into or modified on or after July 1, 2026, a covered business could charge an early termination fee only if the initial contract clearly and conspicuously disclosed either the total fee or a calculation formula accompanied by an example showing the highest possible fee. The disclosure would have to be visible without opening a tooltip or following a hyperlink.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors#1 Best Overall
The analysis also described a cap of 20% of the total contract cost. This is a limit specified in the analyzed bill version, not a measured consumer-impact statistic or a confirmed current-law limit.
- The proposal would not prevent a business from requiring a customer to return goods.
- The Senate analysis described treatment for broadband providers that meet federal broadband consumer disclosure requirements.
- It also described an exception for contracts already subject to stronger state or federal consumer protections.
The date changed as AB 483 moved through the Legislature: the Assembly analysis described January 1, 2026, while the later Senate analysis discussed July 1, 2026. Because the final chaptered text and current enforcement status are not established by these analyses, neither date should be treated here as the operative date.
Why supporters and opponents disagreed
Supporters argued that consumers can feel financially trapped by unclear cancellation charges and that a fee may exceed the amount needed to recover a discount. Assemblymember Irwin’s statement in the Assembly analysis said the bill would protect consumers through distinct disclosure and a cap tied to total contract cost.
Opponents argued that limiting recoverable fees could weaken businesses’ incentive to offer discounts or installment plans, because a customer who cancels early might leave a business unable to recover its costs. The Senate analysis quotes the California Chamber of Commerce making that argument. These are competing stakeholder claims, not demonstrated outcomes.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The Senate analysis lists Consumer Attorneys of California as a supporter and the California Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association, and California Retailers Association among opponents. The Assembly analysis also lists broadband and telecommunications industry groups as opponents.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How this differs from other California fee rules
Automatic Renewal Law
AB 483 is not the same as California’s Automatic Renewal Law. The Assembly analysis says early termination fees on installment contracts were not covered by recent changes to automatic-renewal rules or the hidden-fee law. In a September 4, 2025 alert, the Attorney General summarized Automatic Renewal Law changes effective July 1, 2025, including requirements concerning express consent, cancellation methods, and certain renewal or trial notices. Those rules concern automatic-renewal and continuous-service offers, not the specific installment-contract fee cap described for AB 483. See the Attorney General’s consumer alert.
SB 478 and mandatory-fee price transparency
SB 478 is a price-transparency rule. The Attorney General’s guidance says displayed prices generally must include mandatory fees; that rule does not itself set the amount a business may charge as an early termination fee. AB 483, by contrast, was described as proposing a cap for a defined category of fees. See the Attorney General’s SB 478 guidance.
Quick Recap
Best Value
What consumers should take from the proposal
- Check whether the contract is a fixed-term installment agreement for goods or services, rather than assuming every subscription cancellation fee is covered.
- Look for the contract’s stated early termination fee or calculation method, and distinguish a fee for electing to terminate from missed-payment obligations.
- Do not rely on the 20% figure or July 1, 2026 date as current law without checking the enacted text and applicable rules.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
