California lawmakers have advanced a controversial bill that critics have dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” arguing that it could make investigative reporting and citizen journalism significantly more difficult by creating new legal risks for those who publish recordings of certain organizations and individuals.
The legislation, AB 2624, passed the California Assembly on Tuesday, largely along party lines. While supporters say the measure is intended to protect vulnerable individuals and workers from harassment and intimidation, opponents contend it could be weaponized against journalists investigating fraud, misconduct, and abuse.
🚨 IT’S OFFICIAL: California lawmakers have ADVANCED the STOP Nick Shirley Act, which SHIELDS migrant fraudster hubs from journalists
Victims can get thousands in damages and journalists might have to take videos DOWN.
Gavin is about to take EVEN MORE unconstitutional actions… pic.twitter.com/aqWS3UQzGf
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 27, 2026
Independent journalist Nick Shirley, whose investigations into alleged fraud schemes have gained a large online following, has emerged as one of the bill’s most vocal critics.
“California just voted to pass AB 2624, aka ‘The Stop Nick Shirley Act,’” Shirley wrote on X. “This bill puts journalists at civil risk for investigating fraud and makes it harder to expose fraud in ‘immigration support services,’ including NGOs, nonprofits and health care facilities that receive hundreds of millions from the state of California each year.”
🚨 California just voted to pass AB 2624 aka “The Stop Nick Shirley Act”:
This bill puts journalists at civil risk for investigating fraud and makes it harder to expose fraud in “immigration support services,” including NGOs, nonprofits and health care facilities that receive… pic.twitter.com/8XLOkTGpku— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) May 26, 2026
According to critics, the bill would allow certain organizations and individuals to seek court orders requiring the removal of videos if they claim publication creates a reasonable fear for their safety. Those who refuse could potentially face legal costs, attorney fees, and statutory damages.
Opponents argue that such provisions could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, particularly when reporters document activities occurring in public spaces. They warn that organizations accused of wrongdoing could invoke the law to suppress reporting rather than address allegations.
Shirley argues that the measure directly threatens the type of investigations he has conducted in recent years. His reporting has focused heavily on alleged misuse of taxpayer-funded programs, including daycare reimbursement schemes in Minnesota and hospice care operations in California.
🚨 California just voted to pass AB 2624 aka “The Stop Nick Shirley Act”:
This bill puts journalists at civil risk for investigating fraud and makes it harder to expose fraud in “immigration support services,” including NGOs, nonprofits and health care facilities that receive… pic.twitter.com/8XLOkTGpku— Nick shirley (@nickshirleyy) May 26, 2026
He has repeatedly questioned why allegations of fraud often become partisan political battles rather than issues of broad public concern.
The legislation has also attracted criticism because it was introduced by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, whose husband serves as California’s attorney general. Critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, though supporters of the bill reject those claims and argue the measure addresses legitimate privacy and safety concerns.
🚨 HOLY CRAP! Nick Shirley FOLLOWED the California Speaker of the House and a Senator for pushing the Stop Nick Shirley Act, which CRIMINALIZES anti-fraud journalism
They were stumbling, panicked, REFUSING to acknowledge that levying up to $50K fines for journalism is TYRANNY… pic.twitter.com/FCYebyZQUB
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 18, 2026
The exact impact of the legislation remains the subject of debate. Supporters maintain that it is designed to protect vulnerable communities and workers from targeted harassment campaigns, while opponents argue its language is broad enough to discourage journalists and independent investigators from publishing legitimate reporting on matters of public interest.
As the bill advances through the legislative process, the controversy surrounding it is likely to intensify. For critics like Shirley, the measure represents a direct challenge to investigative journalism and public accountability. For supporters, it is a safeguard against intimidation and misuse of recordings.
