California: No Wholesaling Law Yet, But One Is Moving

State: California | Proposed bill: AB 1850 (Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin, introduced February 11, 2026) | Status in legislature: Not law. Passed its first committee 19 to 0, then stalled: held under submission in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026, with no action of any kind since. Not formally withdrawn or dead, but functionally dead for the 2026 calendar unless the committee revives it | Bottom line: Wholesaling in California works today exactly as it did last year. But a licensing bill cleared its first committee without a single no vote, so treat this state as on the clock.

Where Things Stand Today

As of July 8, 2026, California has no wholesaling-specific statute. No required seller disclosure, no cancellation window, no registration, no restriction on assigning the purchase contract you signed. Your position as buyer under a purchase agreement is an assignable contract right, and selling that right for a fee is legal under ordinary contract law.

The constraint that already exists is California's general real estate licensing law, the same line that exists in every state:

• Market your contract position, never the property itself. "Assignable purchase contract available" is you selling something you own. Advertising the house as if you are its seller, with no title and no license, is the unlicensed brokerage pattern that regulators act on.
• Only assign deals where you are the contracted buyer. Putting deals together for other people for a fee is brokerage and needs a license.

What the Proposed Bill Would Do

AB 1850 is a licensing bill, not a disclosure-only bill. We now have the actual amended bill text (as amended in Assembly, April 15, 2026), so this is the bill's real language, not a secondhand summary. It would add new Business & Professions Code Section 10140.9 and add the words "sales contract" to the existing broker-definition list in Section 10131(a):

1. Prohibit wholesaling without a California real estate license. Section 10140.9(a) defines wholesaling as "entering into, or offering to enter into, a contract or option to purchase real property on behalf of another person and selling, assigning, or marketing that contract or option to them for compensation or profit." Section 10140.9(b) then bars anyone from wholesaling "unless they hold a valid real estate license." Note what the bill no longer does: the version introduced in February would have added a standalone wholesaling clause directly into the broker definition itself (proposed Section 10131(f)). The April 15 amendment struck that clause entirely. What survives in 10131 is a much smaller change, adding "sales contract" to the list of things a broker negotiates in subdivision (a). The operative wholesaling rule now lives entirely in the new 10140.9, not in the broker definition.
2. Require a written disclosure to the property owner (10140.9(c)) stating that "the wholesaler will not take title to the property and is a person seeking to assign or sell their contract rights for a profit before closing."
3. Require every ad or offer to sell or assign a contract or option (10140.9(d)(1)) to "clearly disclose in writing that the person making the offer does not hold legal title to the property."
4. Treat a missing disclosure as "substantial misrepresentation," which is grounds for disciplinary action under Section 10176 (10140.9(d)(2)). To correct an earlier draft of this page: the bill text does NOT void non-compliant contracts. There is no such provision anywhere in the current draft. The only consequence spelled out is Department of Real Estate discipline against the wholesaler's (hypothetical, since none exists yet) license, triggered through the misrepresentation finding.

Legislative history, confirmed directly from the official Legislature bill-history page: introduced February 11, 2026; referred to the Business & Professions and Judiciary committees March 16; passed Business & Professions 19 to 0 and re-referred to Judiciary April 14; read a second time and amended (this is where 10131(f) was struck) April 15; re-referred to Judiciary and then, under Assembly Rule 96, to Appropriations April 16; set for hearing and placed on the Appropriations suspense file May 6; held under submission May 14. Nothing has happened since. "Held under submission" is the standard mechanism Appropriations uses to kill non-priority bills without a floor vote: it clears the suspense file once or twice a year, and anything not sent to the floor that day sits with no further scheduled hearing. Reviving it requires an affirmative motion for reconsideration from the committee, which has not happened here in the roughly two months since. Bills held on suspense often die there quietly, but this one's unanimous committee vote says the idea has broad support even if this particular bill dies.

What to Watch

• Nothing is required of you today. Do not let anyone tell you assignments are already illegal in California. They are not.
• Watch the end of the 2025-2026 session, not a "two-year bill" clock. AB 1850 was introduced in February 2026, already the second year of the 2025-2026 regular session, so it does not get the usual one-year carryover that first-year bills get. If it stays held under submission, it dies outright when the session ends November 30, 2026, and would need to be reintroduced as brand-new legislation in the 2027-2028 session to have any further life. Expect a reintroduction either way; a 19 to 0 committee vote is not a fluke.
• The trigger here is licensing, not assignment. This is not the Missouri pattern. The clean compliance path, if a version of this bill becomes law, is holding a California real estate license. The bill's actual definition (10140.9(a)) does not exempt double closing or any other structure by name, so do not assume any Missouri-style loophole carries over.
• Adopt the bill's disclosures now, voluntarily. Tell property owners in writing that you will not take title to the property and are seeking to assign or sell your contract rights for a profit before closing, and put "does not hold legal title to the property" in your ad and dispo marketing. That is the bill's own proposed wording (10140.9(c), (d)(1)). It costs nothing, it matches exactly what AB 1850 would require if enacted, and it future-proofs your process.
• If you are running deals in California at scale, have an attorney track the bill directly rather than relying on this page alone.

This is analysis, not legal advice. Confirm anything you rely on with a California real estate attorney.

Sources: the official California Legislature bill text and bill-history record for AB 1850 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov), retrieved 2026-07-08, is the primary source for the definition, disclosure language, and legislative timeline above. A third-party industry report and the Google deep research report were used only for earlier background and are superseded here by the official bill text where they conflict.