[jkaplowitz]

Widespread pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements with class-action waivers and bans on mass arbitration kind of put a damper on that, and the Supreme Court has upheld those nationwide in ways California can't easily override.

But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)

On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.

[anon373839]

There’s actually a more powerful legislative tool available: citizens can be empowered to sue on behalf of the state for what is effectively class relief, and to partake in the recovery (with attorneys fees). This creates a market incentive to prosecute claims like this, and it also circumvents arbitration. PAGA is such a statute.

[jkaplowitz]

PAGA can be, and sometimes is, explicitly waived by name and/or by description in arbitration agreements which purport to compel arbitration of even those claims. The Supreme Court recently upheld such a waiver with respect to the individual plaintiffs' claims, but it left open the possibility of a representative PAGA claim; the California courts are still working out whether PAGA still allows such a "headless" claim, with disagreement among different California couts and no ruling yet from the California Supreme Court.

The problem with PAGA in this context is that the citizen is also a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore can be bound by the arbitration agreement, making the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Federal Arbitration Act applicable. My proposal avoids this problem since the FAA doesn't prevent citizens from notifying government agencies and doesn't prevent government agencies from suing (except in the rare context of any arbitration agreement to which the government agency is itself a party).

But if you want citizens to have a financial incentive with my proposal, then sure, legislatively give the first person to notify CPPA / CA AG a cut of the eventual proceeds (to be split with anyone else who is the first person to successfully sue for or enforce a corresponding writ of mandamus), and create a way to track who that first notifier is.