Committee advances bill requiring platforms to share short‑term rental addresses with local governments

Senate Bill 346, which would require short‑term rental platforms to disclose property addresses to local governments to support transient occupancy tax administration and ordinance enforcement, was advanced by the Assembly Judiciary subcommittee and sent to Appropriations.

Author Senator María Elena Durazo said short‑term rental platforms refuse to provide property addresses and instead offer voluntary collection agreements that mask addresses and restrict local audits — practices she and many local governments said hinder collection of transit occupancy taxes (TOT) and enforcement of local short‑term‑rental rules. She said an estimated 72% of short‑term rentals in Los Angeles County operate without business licenses and called for tools to identify and audit those listings.

Karen Lang, representing the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, described the enforcement gap: “State statute is clear. We do have the authority to audit short term rentals … What we don't have is the address in order to do that.” John DeChristina, counsel for municipal clients and the League of California Cities, said the bill clarifies legal authority and reduces the patchwork of litigation local governments face when trying to obtain addresses.

Major marketplace platforms including Airbnb and Expedia opposed the bill unless amended, arguing local governments already have administrative subpoena powers and that the bill’s informal‑request approach would create legal uncertainty. Platform representatives said courts in several jurisdictions have treated owners’ physical addresses as private in preliminary rulings, and they urged tying address production to administrative subpoenas or other legal compulsion.

Committee members representing cities large and small recounted years of local work to craft ordinances, licensing systems and portals and said the bill would standardize access and ease enforcement, especially in local governments without the capacity to litigate repeatedly. The author said she and supporters had worked to tailor the measure but would continue to negotiate about subpoena processes and privacy protections.

The measure was moved to Appropriations. The transcript shows sustained testimony from a wide set of cities, counties and trade groups and vigorous opposition from platforms urging a subpoena‑based approach or other safeguards.