Internet Lawyer Blog
California’s anti-doxing statute, which is codified under California Civil Code § 53.8, is a law designed to protect individuals from the intentional, malicious publication of their personal identifying information, which is commonly known as “doxing” when done with the intent to cause harm, harassment, or to incite violence.
Assembly Bill 1979
Assembly Bill 1979 entitled as the “Doxing Victims Recourse Act” discusses the relevant rules and regulations. Civil Code Section 1708.89(c) outlines the victim’s rights and states, in part, that: A prevailing plaintiff who suffers harm as a result of being doxed in violation of subdivision (b) may recover any of the following: (1) economic and noneconomic damages proximately caused by being doxed, including, but not limited to, damages for physical harm, emotional distress, or property damage; (2) statutory damages of a sum of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) but not more than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000); (3) punitive damages; and (4) upon the court holding a properly noticed hearing, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiff.
California Civil Code § 53.8
California Civil Code § 53.8 was enacted in 2022 and went into effect in 2023, as part of broader efforts to combat online harassment, particularly targeting public officials, healthcare workers, journalists, and private individuals.
Key Provisions
Cause of Action: A person can bring a civil lawsuit if someone knowingly posts their personal identifying information online (e.g., home address, phone number, email) with the intent to encourage others to harass or harm them, and harm actually occurs (e.g., threats, harassment, violence).
Types of Relief Available:
- Compensatory damages
- Punitive damages (if malicious intent is proven)
- Injunctive relief (court orders to remove content)
- Attorney’s fees and costs
Attorney’s Fees and Costs Provision
Civil Code § 53.8 explicitly provides attorney’s fees and costs to victims by stating in relevant part that: “The court shall award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”
So, if the plaintiff (i.e., victim) wins the case, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs. This provision is designed to encourage victims to seek legal protection even if the financial damages are modest. The statute does not provide reciprocal fees for a prevailing defendant unless another statute applies.
There are limited published California court decisions specifically interpreting or applying Civil Code § 53.8, the state’s anti-doxing statute enacted through Assembly Bill 1979 in 2024. However, the following cases have addressed related issues involving the unauthorized publication of personal information, which may offer insights into how the courts may approach claims under this statute.
Dziubla v. Piazza, 59 Cal.App.5th 140 (2020)
Overview: Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant engaged in “doxing” by publishing their personal information online, leading to harassment. The court examined whether such conduct was protected under the litigation privilege and the anti-SLAPP statute.
Outcome: The court concluded that the doxing allegations fell outside the protections of the litigation privilege because the disclosures were unrelated to the underlying litigation. As a result, certain causes of action based on the doxing were allowed to proceed.
E.G. v. M.L. (2023)
Overview: A trial court granted a three-year civil harassment restraining order against the defendant, finding that she had engaged in doxing by posting the plaintiff’s personal information alongside defamatory accusations. The court determined that this conduct constituted a course of conduct causing the plaintiff to be threatened and harassed.
Legal Basis: The ruling was based on Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, which defines harassment as a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose.
Gabriela Hernandez v. MRI Software LLC, Case No. 23-stcv-14389 (Filed 2023)
Overview: This lawsuit alleges that the defendant used technology to de-anonymize website visitors by cross-referencing anonymized data with commercially available information, effectively revealing individuals’ identities—a practice the plaintiff characterizes as “doxing.”
Claims: Plaintiff brought claims under the California Unauthorized Access to Computer’s Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act, alleging unauthorized access and disclosure of personal information.
Legislative Context
The enactment of California Civil Code § 53.8 (through AB 1979) provides a specific civil cause of action for victims of doxing, allowing them to seek damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. While direct case law interpreting this statute is still developing, the aforementioned cases illustrate the courts’ recognition of the harms associated with unauthorized disclosure of personal information and may influence future interpretations of the anti-doxing statute. In short, consulting with a legal professional experienced in privacy laws would be advisable if you are seeking information on how the courts may apply California Civil Code § 53.8 in specific scenarios or need assistance with a potential case.