What Is AB 673 And What Does It Do 2026?
- Last Updated:
Your paycheck is late. Your bills are not. In California, that delay can be more than a “payroll mistake.” Assembly Bill 673 gives employees a stronger way to push back when wages are not paid on time.
This problem is bigger than most people think. A 2024 study estimated workers in major California metro areas lost $2.3 to $4.6 billion each year from minimum wage violations alone.
After committee review and amendments, AB 673 strengthened Labor Code Section 210, helping workers seek statutory penalties through the Labor Commissioner wage claim process, including a hearing when needed. It also intersects with PAGA and the Private Attorneys General Act, so the right approach matters.
At Setareh Law Group, we help people who are tired of excuses and ready for answers. Keep reading to see what AB 673 does in 2026, when it applies, and how to use it without wasting time.
Why AB 673 Exists And Why It Still Matters In 2026
AB 673 exists because the system had an enforcement gap.
For years, Section 210 allowed penalties for late pay. But workers often did not see those penalties flow straight to them. DLSE explains that Section 210 had long allowed recovery of penalties payable to the state for late payment, including through a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action. AB 673 changed Section 210 so a worker can recover the entire penalty for themselves through the Labor Commissioner wage claim process.
That is the big reason the law exists. Late pay is common. And it harms people fast. AB 673 was built to stop the “it’s only payroll” excuse from working.
It also still matters in 2026 because California is investing in enforcement. The Labor Commissioner’s Office is running a Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant program, including Year 2 funding that covers August 1, 2025 through July 31, 2026. The state set up funding to support enforcement work aimed at wage theft and related violations.
So in 2026, the pressure is real:
- Workers have clearer tools.
- The state is backing enforcement with grants.
- Employers have less room to stall.
Assembly Bill 673 In Simple Terms
Assembly Bill 673 is a California law signed in 2019 and effective January 1, 2020. DLSE explains it amended Labor Code Section 210 so an employee can recover statutory penalties for late payment of wages while still employed.
What AB 673 Does
AB 673 does three main things:
- It ties Section 210 late-pay penalties to the wage claim process
- It allows the employee to recover the whole Section 210 penalty as a statutory penalty through that process.
- It keeps Section 210 penalties available as state-enforced civil penalties too, but the law makes clear the worker cannot collect both for the same violation.
That last point matters. Section 210 includes an “either/or” rule. The statute states an employee is only entitled to either recover the statutory penalty under this section or enforce a civil penalty through PAGA for the same violation, but not both.
What AB 673 Does
AB 673 does not erase other wage rights. It does not replace your right to unpaid wages. It does not cancel overtime claims. It does not wipe out other remedies.
And it does not delete PAGA. PAGA still exists, and it still plays a big role in wage enforcement.
What AB 673 Does Not Change
AB 673 does not erase other wage rights. It does not replace your right to unpaid wages. It does not cancel overtime claims. It does not wipe out other remedies.
And it does not delete PAGA. PAGA still exists, and it still plays a big role in wage enforcement.
How The Bill Moved Through The Legislature
AB 673 did not appear overnight. It went through a lawmaking process that included committee review, amendments, and public steps before it became law. Those edits shaped how Section 210 penalties would be recovered and how the process would work in a wage claim setting.
One word sums up the goal: accountability.
Wage Violations Covered By AB 673
AB 673 is built around Section 210. Section 210 applies when an employer fails to pay wages as required under certain payday rules listed in the statute. The law sets specific penalty amounts and the timing rules it ties to.
DLSE also explains how payday timing works in real life. In general, Labor Code section 204 governs regular payment of wages and requires wages to be paid twice during each calendar month, on days set in advance. It also sets windows for when wages earned in each half of the month must be paid.
Late Pay Is The Core Issue
This is the most common Section 210 problem.
You worked. Payday comes. Your employer does not pay the full amount due on that payday. DLSE states that if an employee does not receive full payment of wages due on the designated payday, the payment is late.
Underpayment Can Trigger Late Pay Penalties
A lot of workers hear, “At least you got paid.” That can be a trap.
DLSE states the statutory penalty can apply when payment is made but is insufficient to meet what the law requires. It notes this is often called underpayment, and if all wages are not properly paid by the due date, late payment penalties apply.
That means these issues can connect to AB 673:
- Minimum wage not fully paid.
- Overtime not fully paid.
- Vacation wages not fully paid when due (depending on the wage type and due date rules).
Meal And Rest Premiums Can Matter Too
Many workers do not realize premium pay can count as wages for timing purposes.
DLSE states Labor Code section 210 penalties apply if meal or rest period premiums are not timely paid, and it points to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services on premium pay being “wages.”
Bottom line: if your employer plays games with what goes into the check, it can still connect back to timely wages and Section 210 penalties.
How AB 673 Changed Enforcement Of Wage Laws
AB 673 did not invent the penalty amounts. It changed who can recover them and how.
What Enforcement Looked Like Before AB 673
DLSE explains that before AB 673, Section 210 allowed for recovery of penalties payable to the state, including through a civil action such as a PAGA case.
So workers often faced a hard choice:
- Bring a larger case (often in court).
- Or accept that late pay might not bring meaningful penalty money to them directly.
What AB 673 Added
AB 673 added a direct path.
It made it possible for an employee to recover the Section 210 penalty as a statutory penalty through the Labor Commissioner wage claim process while still employed. DLSE is very direct on this point.
The bill text also describes recovery tied to a wage claim hearing, meaning penalties can be sought as part of a process used to recover unpaid wages.
Why Employers Face More Heat Now
This change hits employers where it hurts. It turns late pay from “we’ll fix it later” into “we might owe penalties too.”
And the penalty numbers are not tiny.
Labor Code Section 210 states:
- $100 for an initial violation for each failure to pay each employee.
- $200 for each subsequent violation, or any willful or intentional violation, plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld.
That structure is built to stop repeat behavior. AB 673 makes it easier for workers to push that penalty into play.
AB 673 Compared To Other Wage Enforcement Laws
Workers hear a lot of labels. Here is where AB 673 sits.
AB 673 Versus Regular Wage Claims
A wage claim usually focuses on unpaid wages. AB 673 makes Section 210 penalties easier to claim inside that same system, as statutory penalties.
So you are not forced to chase the penalty in a separate, more expensive path.
AB 673 Versus PAGA
PAGA stands for the Private Attorneys General Act. It allows workers to seek penalties for labor violations on behalf of the state and other aggrieved employees, subject to PAGA rules and notice steps.
PAGA also has a penalty split. California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) receives a share, and employees receive a share. For notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, the split is 65% to LWDA and 35% to aggrieved employees, according to the state’s PAGA FAQs.
The San Francisco Bar Association’s overview of the 2024 amendments also describes the same 65/35 allocation as part of “PAGA 2.0.”
Now compare that to AB 673’s Section 210 change. DLSE explains AB 673 allows an employee to recover the entire Section 210 penalty through the Labor Commissioner wage claim process.
So the difference is not academic. It is money and leverage.
Financial Exposure For Employers Under AB 673
If you are an employer, Section 210 is one of those laws you ignore at your own risk.
The Penalties, In Real Numbers
Section 210 says:
- First failure: $100 per employee.
- Later failures (or willful): $200 per employee, plus 25% of the unlawfully withheld amount.
That 25% add-on can blow up the cost fast.
How two late payments totaling $2,000 can result in $800 in penalties once you add $100, then $200, then 25% of $2,000. It also notes these penalties are paid to the affected employee under AB 673.
Why The Risk Can Multiply
The statute is written in a way that can stack. It speaks in terms of each failure and each employee.
So one late payroll run can create many penalty hits at once.
Why Repeat Problems Are Dangerous
A one-time error is bad. A pattern is worse.
Section 210 increases the penalty for subsequent violations and willful conduct. That is the law telling employers, “Fix your system or pay for it.”
Common Misunderstandings About AB 673
Late pay cases are full of bad advice. Here are the myths we see most.
“It Only Applies To Big Companies”
Wrong.
Section 210 is not limited to large employers. It applies broadly to “every person” who fails to pay wages as required by the listed payday laws.
“Payroll Mistakes Don’t Count”
Be careful with this one.
DLSE explains that underpayment still triggers late pay penalties if all wages are not properly paid by the due date. The harm is the same to the worker, even if payroll calls it a mistake.
“If They Fix It Later, It’s Over”
Late is late.
Section 210 is a penalty statute. It is designed to punish the failure to pay on time. AB 673 gives workers a clearer route to recover that penalty for themselves.
“Good Intentions End Liability”
Good intent does not pay rent. Money does.
If the employer fails to pay wages when required, the penalty rule can apply. And the law increases penalties for later violations and willful conduct.
How AB 673 Fits Into California’s Labor Law Landscape In 2026
AB 673 is part of a bigger California trend. Make wage enforcement real. Make it easier to use. Fund it.
Enforcement Is Getting More Support
The Labor Commissioner’s Office is running a Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant program. The DIR grant page states Year 2 covers August 1, 2025 to July 31, 2026, and describes state funding for the program.
DIR also published a news release stating the program will award up to $8.55 million in competitive grants in year two to eligible public prosecutors with established workers’ rights enforcement programs. It describes goals like increased enforcement action against wage theft and misclassification.
That is not theory. That is the state putting money behind enforcement.
PAGA Is Still A Major Tool, But It Has New Rules
PAGA remains important. But the 2024 amendments changed penalty allocation and added new features that affect how PAGA cases work. The state’s PAGA FAQs confirm the 65/35 split for notices filed on or after June 19, 2024.
So in 2026, workers and employers should expect more strategy decisions:
- When Section 210 statutory penalties are the right tool.
- When a broader PAGA approach makes sense.
- When both are in play but must be handled carefully because Section 210 has an either/or rule.
AB 673 Still Has A Clear Job
AB 673 keeps Section 210 penalties from being “state money only.” It gives workers a direct line to recover those penalties through a wage claim process. DLSE says that clearly.
Why Legal Guidance Matters When AB 673 Is Involved
Wage cases look simple until you try to prove them.
You need the right pay dates. You need the right pay period. You need clean proof of what was due, and when it was due.
DLSE’s late payment guidance shows how detailed payday timing can be, including the twice-monthly schedule and the date windows for each half of the month.
You also need to avoid the common trap: mixing up “late wages during employment” with “late final wages after the job ends.” Those are different rules with different penalties.
DIR’s waiting time penalties guidance explains how those penalties work around final pay timing and how they accrue, including clarifying that filing a wage claim with DLSE is not considered “commencing an action” in court for stopping certain accrual.
So legal guidance matters because it helps you:
- Pick the right claims.
- Hit the right deadlines.
- Ask for the right penalties.
- Avoid giving up leverage by accident.
And when Section 210 is involved, that “either statutory penalties or civil penalties” rule can shape the entire plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
1) What Does Assembly Bill 673 Let Me Do As A Worker?
It lets you seek Section 210 late-pay penalties as statutory penalties through the Labor Commissioner wage claim process while still employed.
2) When Did AB 673 Start Working?
DLSE explains the amendments to Labor Code section 210 became effective January 1, 2020.
3) What Are The Section 210 Penalty Amounts?
Section 210 states $100 for an initial violation, and $200 plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld for subsequent or willful violations.
4) Can Underpayment Count As Late Payment?
Yes. DLSE states that if wages are paid but are insufficient, late payment penalties apply because all wages are due by the due date.
5) Does This Apply To Overtime Or Minimum Wage Issues?
DLSE states late payment penalties could apply to wages not timely paid, including minimum wage and overtime wages, depending on the due date rules for the wage type.
6) Do Meal Or Rest Premiums Matter For Section 210?
DLSE states Section 210 penalties apply if meal or rest period premiums are not timely paid and notes the Supreme Court treated premium pay as “wages.”
7) Can I Collect Section 210 Statutory Penalties And Also PAGA Penalties For The Same Late Pay?
Section 210 states an employee can recover either the statutory penalty or enforce a civil penalty through PAGA for the same violation, but not both.
8) What Is PAGA And Why Do People Mention It With AB 673?
PAGA is the Private Attorneys General Act. It is a law that lets workers pursue penalties for labor violations on behalf of the state and others, with penalties split between LWDA and employees.
9) What Is The PAGA Penalty Split In 2026?
For PAGA notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, the state’s PAGA FAQs say 65% goes to LWDA and 35% goes to the aggrieved employees.
10) Why Is Wage Enforcement Such A Big Topic In 2026?
The state is putting funding behind enforcement. DIR’s grant materials and news release describe the Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant program and year-two awards designed to increase enforcement action against wage theft.
How Setareh Law Group Can Help You
If you are still getting late checks, short checks, or “we’ll fix it next pay period,” you do not have to live like that. Assembly Bill 673 changed the game. It gave employees a stronger way to recover Section 210 statutory penalties through the Labor Commissioner, instead of watching those same late-pay penalties function mainly as civil penalties tied to PAGA and the Private Attorneys General Act.
At Setareh Law Group, we take wage theft personally. For over two decades, we have stood with workers across California in cases involving unpaid wages, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination.
We have recovered over $1 billion for workers. We take fewer cases so we can give you direct attention and a plan built around your goals. And you pay nothing up front, because we only get paid if we win.
If AB 673, Labor Code Section 210, a wage claim hearing, or a PAGA strategy question is on your mind, contact Setareh Law Group for a free, confidential consultation. We will help you get clear answers fast, and we will push hard to make your employer follow the law.
Contact us today:
📞 Phone: 310-888-7771
✉️ Email: help@setarehlaw.com
🌐 Address: 420 N Camden Dr, Beverly Hills CA, 90210
Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. Consult with a qualified California employment attorney to discuss your individual situation.
Practice Areas:
Table of Contents
- verified by Trustindex
