California Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218) extended the time childhood sexual abuse survivors have to file civil lawsuits and created a temporary lookback window for older claims. Lawsuits filed under the law have resulted in billions of dollars in settlements and verdicts involving schools and public agencies, prompting lawmakers to consider changes that could make some claims more difficult to pursue.
You'll Learn
- How California’s statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse lawsuits has changed.
- Why schools and public agencies support revising AB 218 and how the proposed changes could affect survivors.
- How recent California laws apply to different childhood and adult sexual abuse claims.
In 2019, the California Legislature passed a landmark bill that significantly changed the deadlines for filing civil lawsuits involving childhood sexual assault. The legislation extended the statute of limitations, giving survivors more time to sue even if the abuse happened years or decades ago.
Survivor advocacy organizations and attorneys applauded the law, but school districts and public agencies say the resulting financial liability is unsustainable. In response to those concerns, lawmakers are discussing changes intended to help schools avoid bankruptcy, a move that survivor groups oppose.
What Is Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218)?
Assembly Bill 218 was introduced by then-Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego in January 2019. The bill made significant changes to how California handles childhood sexual assault claims in civil court.
Under AB 218, a person generally may file a lawsuit until age 40 or within five years of discovering that an adult-onset psychological injury or illness was caused by childhood sexual assault, whichever is later. Before AB 218, the general deadlines were age 26 or three years after discovery.
The bill also created a three-year lookback window from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022. During that period, survivors could file many previously time-barred claims regardless of their age or how long ago the abuse occurred.
In Los Angeles County alone, plaintiffs have filed more than 1,000 lawsuits since the law took effect. Lookback windows have gained popularity nationwide because survivors may need years to disclose abuse, while traditional statutes of limitations don’t always account for that delay. These windows create a limited period during which eligible survivors can file otherwise-expired claims.
AB 218 also permits significant financial penalties when an institution is found to have covered up childhood sexual abuse. In qualifying cases, a plaintiff may receive up to three times the compensatory damages otherwise awarded.
However, courts have limited the application of that provision to public entities. The California Supreme Court determined that treble damages under AB 218 are primarily punitive, and California law generally shields school districts and other public entities from punitive damages.
Why Are California Schools and Public Agencies Challenging AB 218?
According to CalMatters, childhood sexual abuse lawsuits have cost California schools approximately $3 billion. The average payout is reportedly between $5 million and $10 million, although some awards have been much larger. In one case, plaintiffs received a $135 million verdict against a school district accused of failing to prevent a teacher from abusing two students.
School districts aren’t alone in facing substantial liability. In 2025, Los Angeles County approved a $4 billion settlement covering nearly 7,000 claims involving alleged abuse in county-run juvenile facilities and foster care settings.
Education officials argue that the settlements have strained district budgets and affected current students. A Los Angeles Times investigation found that schools had paid $430 million in settlements connected to AB 218 and were expected to resolve additional cases. Claims filed during the lookback window included allegations dating to the 1950s. According to the newspaper, the resulting financial pressure has contributed to stagnant teacher salaries, program cuts, and layoffs. Before AB 218 passed, lobbyists and education organizations warned that its financial consequences could be severe.
What Changes Are Being Proposed to AB 218?
As lawmakers consider survivor rights alongside concerns about the financial effect on public institutions, several potential changes have been discussed. According to EdSource, one lobbying and advocacy organization has recommended a higher standard of proof for allegations involving abuse that occurred more than 20 years ago. It has also proposed limiting damages for pain and suffering, as well as for emotional distress.
The organization is asking lawmakers to consider requiring people who file after age 40 to prove that the institution knew or should’ve known the alleged abuse was occurring. Another proposal would tighten the rules governing evidence from mental health professionals used to establish that a survivor experienced psychological harm because of the abuse.
A California Senate bill with a similar premise failed in 2025 after facing significant resistance from survivor advocates and attorneys. It’s unclear whether future legislation will have a different outcome. The debate has become increasingly contentious as public entities seek financial relief and survivor groups argue that tighter restrictions could prevent people with valid claims from obtaining compensation.
How Tighter Rules Could Affect Older Abuse Claims
Delayed disclosure describes situations in which abuse is not disclosed for years or even decades. It can be especially complicated when the alleged abuse involves a trusted or powerful institution, such as a school or religious organization.
In July 2026, the Archdiocese of San Francisco announced a proposed $395 million settlement with more than 500 survivors of childhood sexual abuse by clergy. The agreement, which still required court approval at the time of its announcement, would resolve lawsuits filed under the AB 218 lookback window.
Survivors may experience shame, guilt, or fear of retaliation that makes disclosing abuse difficult. Trauma can also affect how and when a person recalls, understands, or feels able to discuss what happened. As a result, someone may need significant time before feeling ready to consider filing a lawsuit.
Recent California legislation reflects ongoing efforts to address delayed disclosure. In 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 452, which eliminated the civil statute of limitations for claims arising from childhood sexual abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024. The law doesn’t revive claims involving abuse that occurred before that date.
California has also created a separate filing opportunity for some people who were sexually assaulted as adults. Assembly Bill 250 opened a two-year revival window, running from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, for certain previously time-barred claims. Unlike AB 218, AB 250 applies to adult sexual assault claims and doesn’t revive claims against public entities.
These laws cover different claims and time periods, illustrating the complexity of California’s filing rules. The deadline that applies to a particular survivor may depend on their age when the abuse occurred, the date of the abuse, the type of defendant involved, and whether an institution allegedly covered up previous misconduct.
Survivors considering a California lawsuit should consult an attorney about the deadlines and requirements that may apply to their circumstances. A California sexual assault lawyer familiar with these laws can answer questions and help determine whether someone may have a viable claim.
