California Pay Transparency Law: SB 1162 and the 2026 Amendments

California was the second state (after Colorado) to require pay ranges in job postings at scale, and it remains the jurisdiction with the largest covered workforce. SB 1162, codified at Labor Code § 432.3, applies to any employer with 15 or more employees and covers every job posting for work that can be performed in California — including remote roles. In October 2025 Governor Newsom signed two amendments, SB 642 and SB 464, both effective January 1, 2026. They are frequently garbled together in HR coverage; they do different things, and only one of them touches job postings.

Quick facts

Law

SB 1162, Labor Code § 432.3 (amended by SB 642, eff. Jan 1, 2026)

Posting requirement since

January 1, 2023

Employer threshold

15 or more employees

Required: pay scale

Yes — good-faith estimate of the range expected upon hire (per SB 642)

Required: benefits

No — pay scale only in postings

Applies to remote roles

Yes — if the role can be performed in California

On-request disclosure

Yes — applicants and current employees can request the pay scale for their role

Posting penalty

$100–$10,000 per violation, at the Labor Commissioner’s discretion

Pay data reporting

Separate obligation at 100+ employees; SB 464 made non-filing penalties mandatory

What SB 642 changed for job postings (January 2026)

SB 642, the “Pay Equity Enforcement Act,” made three changes employers feel directly. First, it redefined “pay scale” as a good-faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay upon hire. A range that spans what the role might earn over five years, or one wide enough to cover three seniority levels, is no longer defensible. Second, it broadened the definition of “wages” for equal-pay purposes to include bonuses, stock, stock options, and allowances. Third, it extended the statute of limitations for pay-transparency and equal-pay claims to three years — with a lookback of up to six years for continuing violations — which materially raises the cost of a stale, non-compliant posting that nobody remembered to fix.

What SB 464 changed — and what it did not

SB 464 is the source of the “mandatory penalty” headlines, and it is widely misreported. It applies to California’s pay data reporting obligation under Government Code § 12999 — the annual demographic pay report that private employers with 100 or more employees (or 100+ workers hired through labor contractors) file with the Civil Rights Department. Before 2026, a court couldimpose a penalty for non-filing; SB 464 changed “may” to “shall.” On the CRD’s request, a court must now impose up to $100 per employee for a failure to file, and up to $200 per employee for subsequent failures. SB 464 also requires demographic data to be collected and stored separately and moves reporting to standardized SOC-based job classifications in coming cycles.

What SB 464 did notdo is change the penalty for a non-compliant job posting. Posting violations under Labor Code § 432.3 remain subject to civil penalties of $100 to $10,000 per violation, assessed at the Labor Commissioner’s discretion — and for a first posting violation, no penalty is assessed if the employer brings all postings into compliance. If a vendor or a LinkedIn post told you California now fines $100 per employee automatically for a missing salary range, that is a conflation of the two bills.

What counts as a compliant pay scale

The pay scale must be the range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire — as a good-faith estimate, in the posting itself, including postings syndicated through job boards and staffing agencies. A single number is permissible only when the pay is truly fixed. “Competitive” or “DOE” is a violation. Piece-rate and commission structures must disclose the applicable rate or range. See what counts as a valid salary range for the standard applied across states.

Who is covered

The 15-employee threshold counts all employees, not just Californians, so an out-of-state company with a handful of California hires is covered. The posting rule attaches to any role that can be performed in California — which for a remote-eligible posting means it attaches unless California candidates are genuinely excluded. Multi-state employers should treat SB 1162 as their baseline and layer stricter states on top; see every state that requires salary ranges for the full map.

Frequently asked questions