Does California Have Laws Against Doxing?
In the digital age, personal information is more accessible than ever before. However, the unauthorized release of private data with malicious intent-commonly known as "doxing," has serious legal consequences in California.
California prohibits doxing mainly under Penal Code 653.2 PC, which criminalizes sharing personal information to induce fear or harassment electronically.
The recently enacted AB 1979 (The Doxing Recourse Victims Act), which takes effect on January 1, 2025, allows victims to seek damages and restitution.
These laws make it illegal to intentionally harass or threaten, and introduce new civil remedies for victims to pursue compensation for damages such as pain and suffering and legal expenses.
If you have been accused of doxing, you could face up to a year in county jail if you are convicted.
Key Takeaways
- California Penal Code 653.2 PC (cyberstalking and harassment) bans using electronic devices to send threatening messages or share private information with the aim of causing fear for oneself or family. Violations can result in jail time and fines.
- AB 1979 (Doxing Recourse Victims Act), effective January 1, 2025, allows victims to sue perpetrators for up to $30,000 (plus court and attorney fees) for pain, suffering, and other damages, providing civil remedies.
- Doxing is considered illegal when the published details-such as address, occupation, SSN, etc.-are used to induce fear, harassment, or unwanted contact, especially if the information was not publicly accessible and was shared maliciously.
- California has laws against stalking (PC 646.9) and other forms of harassment. Additionally, federal laws may apply to specific victims, such as government employees.
Understanding Doxing and Its Dangers
Doxing (sometimes spelled "doxxing") is short for "dropping docs." It involves publicly releasing an individual's private or identifying information-such as their home address, phone number, workplace, or email-without their consent.
While simply finding information online is often legal, doxing crosses into illegal territory when the intent is to encourage harassment, threats, or harm against the subject.
The dangers of doxing are significant. Victims often face swarms of harassment, stalking, identity theft, and physical danger.
Because the internet allows information to spread instantly and uncontrollably, the harm caused by doxing can be immediate and devastating.
Recognizing these risks, California legislators have enacted laws criminalizing this behavior and providing recourse for victims.
What Does PC 653.2 Say?
The primary statute governing doxing in California is Penal Code 653.2. This law makes it a crime to electronically distribute personal identifying information with the intent to cause harassment or fear.
For a prosecutor to secure a conviction under PC 653.2, they must prove several specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Electronic Distribution: The defendant used an electronic communication device (such as a computer or smartphone) to distribute, publish, email, or hyperlink personal identifying information or a harassing message.
- Intent to Instill Fear: The defendant acted with the specific intent to place the victim (or their immediate family) in reasonable fear for their safety.
- Lack of Consent: The dissemination of information was done without the victim's permission.
- Intent to Incite Harassment: The defendant intended to imminently cause the victim unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment by a third party.
- Likelihood of Harm: The distributed information would likely incite or produce that unlawful action.
It is important to note that under this statute, "harassment" is defined as a knowing and willful course of conduct that a reasonable person would consider seriously alarming, annoying, tormenting, or terrorizing, and that serves no legitimate purpose.
Penalties for Violation
A violation of PC 653.2 is categorized as a misdemeanor in California. While misdemeanors are less severe than felonies, the consequences are still substantial. If convicted, penalties may include:
- Up to one year in county jail.
- A fine of up to $1,000.
- Summary probation.
- Restraining orders.
AB 1979: Expanded Civil Liabilities and Injunctions
In addition to criminal penalties, California law has evolved to offer victims greater civil recourse. Assembly Bill 1979 (AB 1979), the "Doxing Victims Recourse Act," was passed in September 2024 to strengthen protections for doxing victims.
This legislation created a private right of action, allowing victims to sue the perpetrator in civil court. Under AB 1979 (codified as Civil Code Section 1708.89), a victim can seek damages if they can prove they were doxed.
Notably, this law allows victims to recover:
- Economic and Non-Economic Damages: Compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, or physical harm.
- Statutory Damages: A fixed sum ranging from $1,500 to $30,000, which serves as a penalty regardless of actual proven financial loss.
- Punitive Damages: Additional financial penalties designed to punish the offender.
- Attorney's Fees: The court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs.
Crucially, AB 1979 makes it easier for victims to obtain injunctions that specifically order a defendant to cease doxing. This creates a legal barrier preventing the continued spread of information.
The law also allows plaintiffs to proceed under a pseudonym (like "Jane Doe") to protect their identity during the legal process, ensuring that the lawsuit itself does not lead to further exposure.
Common Defenses Against Doxing Charges
Facing a charge under PC 653.2 does not guarantee a conviction. Because the laws rely heavily on the defendant's intent and the nature of the information shared, a skilled California criminal defense attorney may employ several legal defenses. Common defenses include:
- Lack of Intent: The statute requires specific intent. If you shared information without the intent to instill fear or cause harassment-perhaps as part of a news report, a public discussion, or a misunderstanding have not violated PC 653.2.
- Publicly Available Information: While not a complete defense if the intent to harass is present, it can be argued that compiling information already readily available in public records (like phone books or property records) differs from hacking or leaking private data. This may speak to the "reasonable fear" element of the crime.
- Lack of Causation: For criminal liability, the information shared must be likely to incite unlawful action by a third party. If the shared information was unlikely to cause anyone else to harass the victim, the elements of the crime may not be met.
- False Accusations: In the digital realm, it is easy to spoof identities. A defense attorney may argue that you were not the individual behind the keyboard, or that your account was hacked or used by someone else to distribute the information.
For a case evaluation, contact the criminal defense law firm at Eisner Gorin LLP in Los Angeles.
Related Content:
If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges,