SB 655 Habitability Heat Claims in California 2026
California’s SB 655 adds “excessive indoor heat” to the list of conditions that make a rental unit legally uninhabitable. Starting in 2026, tenants who live in sweltering apartments where the landlord has failed to provide adequate cooling can now pursue rent withholding, repair-and-deduct remedies, and damages under the warranty of habitability — the same legal framework used for mold, rodent infestations, and broken plumbing. What Does SB 655 Add to California’s Habitability Standards? SB 655 amends Civil Code §1941 to expressly include “excessive indoor heat” among the conditions that a landlord must prevent or remedy to keep a rental unit in a habitable condition. Before this law, excessive heat was not listed as a named habitability violation, which made it harder for tenants to invoke the warranty of habitability framework against landlords who refused to install or maintain air conditioning. Under existing California law (Civil Code §1941–§1942.5), landlords are required to maintain rental property in a condition fit for human habitation. That obligation has always included protection from weather, but the specific application to extreme indoor heat was unclear. SB 655 removes that ambiguity. Key elements of SB 655: Excessive indoor heat is a named condition under Civil Code §1941 Landlords must take reasonable steps to prevent or remedy excessive heat conditions Tenants gain access to all existing habitability remedies when heat conditions are not addressed The law applies to all California residential rental properties subject to Civil Code §1941 What Temperature Qualifies as “Excessive Indoor Heat” Under SB 655? SB 655 establishes temperature thresholds that define when indoor heat constitutes a habitability violation. While the precise regulatory thresholds may be refined through California Department of Public Health rulemaking, the legislative framework references conditions where indoor temperatures exceed levels that pose a risk to health — generally understood to mean sustained indoor temperatures above 82°F during sleeping hours or 90°F during waking hours without any accessible cooling mechanism. The relevant factors in determining whether heat is “excessive” for legal purposes include: Indoor air temperature measured at habitable living areas (not just at the thermostat) Duration — brief temperature spikes differ from sustained heat over hours or days Humidity — high humidity dramatically increases the health risk of elevated temperatures Vulnerability of occupants — elderly, infants, and people with certain medical conditions face greater risk Whether the landlord provided, or failed to provide, functioning cooling equipment Whether the landlord was notified of the problem and failed to act In the Bay Area — where historically mild weather has meant many older rental units lack central air conditioning — tenants in units that reach dangerous temperatures during increasingly common summer heat events now have a clear legal basis to demand that their landlord act. What Are a Tenant’s Remedies Under SB 655? By incorporating excessive heat into Civil Code §1941, SB 655 gives tenants access to the full toolkit of California habitability remedies. These include: Repair and Deduct Under Civil Code §1942, a tenant who has notified the landlord of a habitability defect and waited a reasonable period (generally at least 30 days, or less in an emergency) without a repair can: Hire a contractor or purchase equipment (such as an air conditioning unit) to address the problem Deduct the cost from the next month’s rent The deduction is capped at one month’s rent and may be used only twice in any 12-month period. For heat-related issues, this remedy is particularly useful because a portable air conditioning unit or window unit may quickly resolve the problem. Rent Withholding Under the common law warranty of habitability as recognized in California (see *Green v. Superior Court*), a tenant may withhold rent — or pay reduced rent — when the rental unit is substantially uninhabitable. The withheld rent is typically deposited with the court in a “rent escrow” arrangement while the habitability dispute is resolved. SB 655 clarifies that excessive heat qualifies as such a substantial condition. Constructive Eviction If the heat conditions are severe enough that you are forced to leave the unit, you may have a constructive eviction claim. Constructive eviction allows you to terminate the lease and sue for damages — moving costs, the difference between your old rent and new rent for a comparable unit, and other out-of-pocket expenses. Affirmative Damages Action Under Civil Code §1942.4, tenants can sue for actual damages, including: Reduced rental value during the period of uninhabitability Costs of hotels, cooling equipment, or medical treatment related to heat exposure General damages for discomfort and annoyance Emotional distress damages in egregious cases Retaliatory Eviction Defense If a landlord tries to evict you after you complain about excessive heat, California’s anti-retaliation statute (Civil Code §1942.5) protects you. A landlord cannot increase rent, decrease services, or file an eviction within 180 days of a tenant’s good-faith complaint about habitability conditions. What Are a Landlord’s Obligations Under SB 655? Under SB 655, landlords must: Provide a means of cooling — this does not necessarily mean central air conditioning; appropriate solutions may include functioning window or wall AC units, effective ventilation, or other cooling mechanisms appropriate to the building and climate Respond promptly to heat complaints — once a tenant notifies the landlord in writing of excessive heat conditions, the landlord must respond and remedy the condition within a reasonable time Maintain existing cooling equipment — if the unit already has AC or fans installed, the landlord must maintain them in working condition under Civil Code §1941.1 Not retaliate against tenants who assert heat-related habitability rights Landlords who fail to address documented heat conditions after proper notice face escalating legal exposure: repair-and-deduct deductions from rent, rent withholding claims, and civil damages actions. How Should Tenants Document Excessive Heat for a Legal Claim? Strong documentation is essential to a successful habitability claim based on excessive heat. Bay Legal, PC recommends the following documentation strategy: Physical Evidence: Purchase an inexpensive indoor thermometer and take readings at multiple times of day, particularly during the hottest periods Photograph the thermometer readings with timestamps — your
AB 1414 HOA Internet Choice Violations: Your Rights
California’s AB 1414 prohibits homeowners associations and developers from forcing residents into exclusive internet service provider contracts or mandatory bulk-billing arrangements. If your HOA is requiring you to use a single ISP, bundling internet charges into your assessments without a compliant opt-out mechanism, or preventing you from subscribing to a provider of your choice, you may have grounds to challenge that arrangement and seek relief. What Does AB 1414 Prohibit? AB 1414 targets two related practices that have become common in California planned communities, condominium complexes, and new developments: Exclusive ISP Contracts: An HOA or developer cannot require residents to use a single, named internet service provider as a condition of living in the community. Arrangements where a developer negotiates a deal with one ISP and then structures the community’s infrastructure to make it practically impossible to use any other provider are the primary target of the law. Mandatory Bulk-Billing Without Choice: “Bulk billing” refers to the practice of an HOA contracting with an ISP on behalf of all residents and adding the cost to each homeowner’s monthly assessment — sometimes without the homeowner’s knowledge or meaningful ability to opt out. Under AB 1414, bulk-billing arrangements that do not preserve the resident’s right to cancel, use an alternative provider, or receive a credit for not using the bundled service violate the statute. The law aligns California with a growing national consensus that internet access is an essential utility, not a commodity that HOAs should be able to monopolize. How Does AB 1414 Intersect With the Davis-Stirling Act? The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code §4000 through §6150) governs most California HOAs. AB 1414 adds internet choice protections as an additional layer within that framework. The key interaction points are: CC&Rs that conflict with AB 1414 are unenforceable — if your HOA’s declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions requires you to use a specified ISP or pay a bundled internet charge with no opt-out, that provision is void as a matter of law, regardless of when the CC&Rs were recorded Board authority is limited — the HOA board cannot enter into exclusive ISP contracts or bulk-billing arrangements that violate AB 1414, even if the board believes it is getting a good deal for residents Existing contracts entered into before the effective date may require modification — HOAs with pre-existing bulk ISP contracts should review those agreements for compliance Under Davis-Stirling, homeowners also have the right to inspect HOA records (Civil Code §5200 et seq.), which means you can request and review any ISP contract your HOA has entered into to evaluate whether it violates AB 1414. What Is the Homeowner’s Right to Choose an Internet Provider? AB 1414 establishes a fundamental right for California homeowners in CID communities: you have the right to subscribe to any internet service provider that is willing and able to serve your address. The HOA cannot: Refuse to allow an ISP access to the common area infrastructure needed to serve individual units Charge an “access fee” to alternative ISPs that amounts to a practical exclusion Prevent a competing ISP from installing necessary equipment in common areas when the competing ISP is willing to install at its own cost Penalize residents for using an internet provider other than the HOA’s preferred vendor This right to choice is not unlimited — the HOA can set reasonable, nondiscriminatory standards for how ISPs access common area infrastructure (installation methods, equipment locations, restoration of disturbed surfaces). But rules that are structured to favor one ISP over others or to make alternatives impractical cross the line into AB 1414 violations. What Penalties Apply to AB 1414 Violations? AB 1414 provides homeowners with several enforcement mechanisms: Civil Action A homeowner whose internet choice rights are violated can bring a civil action against the HOA or developer in California Superior Court. Available remedies include: Declaratory relief (a court order stating that the exclusive arrangement or bulk-billing provision is void) Injunctive relief (a court order requiring the HOA to stop enforcing the illegal arrangement and to open the community to competing ISPs) Actual damages (additional costs incurred by the homeowner due to the illegal arrangement, such as higher rates paid to the monopoly ISP or costs of a workaround) Attorney fees — under Civil Code §5975, a homeowner who prevails in an action to enforce their rights under Davis-Stirling may recover attorney fees Regulatory Complaints In addition to civil litigation, homeowners may file complaints with the California Department of Consumer Affairs or, for telecommunications-specific issues, with the California Public Utilities Commission regarding anti-competitive arrangements affecting internet access. How to Challenge an Existing Bulk-Billing Arrangement If your HOA is currently billing you for internet service through your monthly assessment without a compliant opt-out mechanism, here is a practical approach: Review your HOA assessments statement — identify the line item for internet or telecommunications services. How much are you being charged? Is there any opt-out notice? Request the ISP contract from the HOA under Civil Code §5200 (right to inspect records). The contract will show the terms, the duration, and any exclusivity provisions. Review the CC&Rs and Rules for any provisions related to internet service or telecommunications. Send a written letter to the board identifying the specific AB 1414 violation and requesting a cure — amendment of the CC&Rs, termination or modification of the exclusive contract, or creation of a compliant opt-out mechanism. Request IDR under Civil Code §5900 if the board refuses to address the issue. Pursue ADR (mediation) if IDR does not resolve the matter. File suit in California Superior Court if informal resolution fails. Bay Legal, PC’s HOA litigation team has experience representing Bay Area homeowners in disputes over assessments, CC&R enforcement, and board authority under Davis-Stirling. What About New Developments and Developer-Imposed ISP Contracts? AB 1414 has special relevance for buyers of newly constructed homes in planned communities throughout the Bay Area. Developers often negotiate bulk ISP contracts before the first homeowner moves in, then either transfer those contracts to the