On August 3, 2026, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) released modified proposed regulatory text as part of its ongoing rulemaking under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The modifications follow a public comment period that closed on March 23, 2026, and a public hearing held on April 9, 2026, and are now subject to an additional 15-day comment period.

Notable changes to the original proposed regulations include:

  1. Stricter Rules for Post-Settlement Amendments

The original regulations prohibited claimants from amending a PAGA notice to add new alleged violations after reaching a proposed settlement. The modified text takes a step back from an across-the-board ban; rather than barring post-settlement amendments altogether, the modified text allows post-settlement amendments if the claimant provides the following additional information to the LWDA: (i) a list of the specific Labor Code sections allegedly violated, with an indication of which sections are new; (ii) a statement of specific facts supporting the newly alleged violations; (iii) a statement of the investigation or discovery conducted for each newly asserted violation; (iv) a statement describing the manner in which the claimant personally suffered each newly asserted violation; and (v) a statement describing how the worker-protection purposes of PAGA and the interests of justice are furthered by the amendment. 

  1. “Vexatious Filers” Replaced with “Non-Compliant Filers”

One of the most notable revisions is the renaming of the “vexatious filer” designation to “non-compliant filer” throughout the regulations. The modified text also refines the definition: rather than requiring that an attorney have “repeatedly filed” non-compliant PAGA notices, it sets a specific threshold of three or more non-compliant filings within a 12-month period and requires that the filer have “continued to file non-compliant notices after warning by the Agency.” The designation matters because it subjects the filer to additional scrutiny and procedural consequences under the regulations, making the criteria for imposing it particularly significant.

  1. Separate Attorney and Law Firm Thresholds for High-Frequency Filers

The original proposed regulations defined a “high-frequency filer” as any attorney or law firm that filed 200 or more PAGA notices in the preceding 12 months. The modified text now creates two separate thresholds: an individual attorney filing 100 or more notices during the same period, or a law firm filing 200 or more notices during the same period. The designation is significant because high-frequency filers are subject to additional requirements and scrutiny under the regulations, so the revised thresholds expand the circumstances in which an individual attorney may be subject to those heightened obligations.

  1. New Approach to Law Firm Accountability

The original regulations gave the LWDA discretion to extend a prefiling screening order to a non-compliant filer’s entire law firm. The modified text replaces this approach with a cover letter certification requirement: attorneys at firms where one or more colleagues have been designated as non-compliant filers must certify that the designated attorney was not involved in preparing, filing, or handling the matter. Failure to provide the required certification may serve as grounds for a non-compliant filer designation.

  1. New Agency Authority to Flag Deficient Notices

The modified regulations include a new provision authorizing the LWDA to provide written notice to claimants of deficiencies in their PAGA notices. The deficiency notice will identify how the notice fails to comply with applicable requirements and give the claimants up to 30 days to amend their PAGA notices. Importantly, the LWDA’s failure to issue such a notice does not constitute an endorsement of the PAGA notice’s sufficiency.

  1. Enhanced Settlement Submission Requirements

Several new requirements apply to proposed PAGA settlements submitted to the LWDA. These include a properly noticed motion with a memorandum of points and authorities explaining the penalty-valuation methodology, a statement of compliance with litigation-reporting obligations, and a copy of any notice of related cases. Parties must also include a copy of the settlement itself and verify compliance with the regulations’ requirements in court submissions.

**************

These modifications and additions to the regulations are subject to a 15-day public comment window. Written comments may be submitted by mail or email to the LWDA.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the rulemaking process continues.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Scott P. Jang Scott P. Jang

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with…

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a co-leader of the firm’s Class Actions and Complex Litigation practice group and Technology industry group. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Action group, as well as a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Scott’s litigation experience covers the full spectrum of employment law. He has experience defending employers against claims for alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He also has experience defending employers against various wage and hour claims, including claims for alleged overtime, meal and rest breaks, and business expense reimbursement. Scott’s trial practice includes having served as second chair in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which a national beverage manufacturer fully prevailed on all claims for alleged misclassification. He has also served as first chair in several arbitrations for a national retailer for alleged wage and hour violations.

Photo of Andrea F. Oxman Andrea F. Oxman

Andrea “Andy” F. Oxman is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Andy represents a wide array of employers in defending against single plaintiff and class action litigation.

Andy has litigated extensively in both state and federal courts…

Andrea “Andy” F. Oxman is a principal in the Los Angeles, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Andy represents a wide array of employers in defending against single plaintiff and class action litigation.

Andy has litigated extensively in both state and federal courts and has a wide range of significant experience, including motion practice, all phases of discovery, trial preparation, arbitration, and settlement negotiations. Andy’s litigation practice includes defending against individual cases alleging discrimination; failure to provide reasonable accommodation; failure to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process; retaliation; and harassment; as well as wage and hour class actions.