California SB 50: Coercive Control and Connected Devices, Explained
California's coercive-control statute got a real update for the smart-home era. SB 50 (Stats. 2025, ch. 676) was signed on October 13, 2025 and took effect January 1, 2026. It amends Family Code § 6320 to make explicit that “disturbing the peace” — the category coercive control falls under for a domestic violence restraining order — can be carried out through internet-connected devices: smart locks, vehicle trackers, doorbell cameras, wearables, and shared smart-home accounts.
The backbone: § 6320 and SB 1141
California recognized coercive control before SB 50. Since SB 1141 (2020), Family Code § 6320 has treated coercive control as part of “disturbing the peace” — conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party — which is one of the bases for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). SB 50 doesn't replace that; it extends it to a category of abuse that barely existed as a legal concept in 2020: using someone's own smart devices against them.
What SB 50 actually adds
The amendment specifies that disturbing-the-peace conduct, including coercive control, can be committed through “connected devices” as defined in Business & Professions Code § 22948.30 — broadly, anything with an internet or Bluetooth connection that lets someone remotely get data from it or send it commands. Think smart thermostats, GPS trackers hidden in a car, shared Ring or Nest accounts, or a vehicle's connected app still logged in from a shared account. SB 50 also creates a device protection request process — a court mechanism specifically for cutting off an abuser's remote access to connected devices being used to monitor, harass, or control a survivor.
How this connects to custody — and how it doesn't
SB 50 is a protective-order and device-access statute, not a new custody factor — it doesn't rewrite California's best-interests analysis. The custody connection is the same one that already existed for any § 6320 coercive-control finding: California Family Code § 3044 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding sole or joint custody to a parent found to have committed domestic violence within the preceding five years, and a § 6320 finding (including one based on coercive control through a connected device) can support that finding. The custody hook is real, but it's indirect — it runs through § 3044, not through SB 50 itself.
Why the evidence trail matters here specifically
Connected-device abuse often leaves a text or app-notification trail of its own — a message referencing a location the sender shouldn't have known, a notification that a shared account was accessed, a pattern of contact timed suspiciously close to device activity. That kind of evidence benefits from the same discipline as any coercive-control pattern: a full, timestamped export rather than isolated screenshots. See our coercive control guide for how other states have approached this, and proving coercive control through text messages for what actually demonstrates a pattern.
This is general information about California law as currently written, not legal advice. Talk to a California family law attorney about how SB 50, § 6320, and § 3044 apply to your specific situation.
See the pattern across the whole thread
Upload your export and get a free health score in minutes — the analysis runs in your browser, nothing is uploaded.
Get your free health score →