We’ve compiled the most common questions our team has received about AB 747, the SPARE Act, organized by category — and asked One Legal’s resident experts, Richard Heinrich, Mark Schwartz, and Kristian Pujol to weigh in. If you don’t find what you’re looking for here, make sure to check out our comprehensive, on-demand webinar all about the SPARE Act. Still have questions? We want to hear from you. Send your questions to our team at [email protected] and we’ll make sure they get answered.
Scope of the law and what it applies to
All civil cases served from Jan 1, 2027 onwards. It doesn’t apply to criminal cases. The law really clearly only amends the Civil Procedure Code.
No. The law applies only to civil service of process. It does not apply to criminal proofs of service. The statute amends sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and the bill’s text repeatedly limits its scope to civil matters.
No. Most provisions apply to civil cases generally, and not just to UD actions. The following are applicable to all civil cases:
- The public register of process servers;
- “Reasonable diligence” definition;
- Photo, date/time, and GPS coordinates on proofs of service; and
- Strengthened motions to set aside defaults for improper service (burden shifts to the party seeking the default).
Applicable only to UD:
- “Reasonable diligence” as applied to posting; and
- A new requirement that UD complaints state the date, time, and location of service of the termination notice.
The new diligence requirements apply only to service of the summons and complaint. However, the law does add one new requirement related to termination notices in UD cases. Under revised CCP 1166(a)(5), the UD complaint itself must state the method used to serve the termination notice and the date/time, and location of effected service of that notice.
The bill’s purpose is stated in section 1: The goal is to combat “sewer service,” i.e., the practice in which a server fails to actually notify a defendant of a lawsuit and then falsely certifies that service was made. It’s stated goal is to “address the problem and advance accountability and transparency in service of process.”
The law doesn’t create any special rules for government employees. For service on a government employee in their official capacity, expect the same new diligence and documentation requirements that apply to service on any other business or entity representative, with service directed to the official office.
Yes, the law makes really big changes to sub-service. Reasonable diligence is now defined (three attempts on three days at three different times), evidence needs to be collected on every attempt and then provided on the proof of service, and consumer debt cases have the additional requirement that at least one attempt be at the person’s dwelling/usual place of abode.
Correct, the law applies to the initial service of a summons/complaint. It does not change anything governing service of post-appearance papers. So, practically: AB 747 is about getting the defendant into the case properly. Once that’s done and the parties are litigating, routine service of court filings is unaffected.
This law doesn’t change anything related to alternative forms of service after traditional methods have been exhausted. Those provisions (in CCP 413.30 – court-ordered alternative service in any manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice and CCP 415.50 – Service by Publication) are untouched by this law.
No, the law applies to summons/complaints.
Under CCP 415.20(b)(3), the requirement that at least one sub-service attempt be made at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of abode only applies to actions collecting “consumer debt.”
When serving an individual in their capacity as a representative of a business entity, under CCP 416.10-416.50, sub-service is governed by 415.20(a), not (b). That section directs service to the person’s office (or usual mailing address if no physical address is known), with no dwelling or abode component.
AB 747 treats commercial and residential service almost identically. The only commercial-specific carve-out is in unlawful detainer posting. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.45(d)(1), at least one of the three required diligence attempts must be made at the defendant’s dwelling, but commercial UDs are expressly exempt from that dwelling-attempt requirement. Three attempts on three different days at three different times are still required; none of them needs to be at a residence.
Two other points are worth noting, though neither is a commercial carve-out in the formal sense. First, substituted service on a corporation or other business entity under § 415.20(a) does not require the three-attempts showing at all. That diligence rule applies only to substituted service on individuals under § 415.20(b). Second, the consumer-debt rule requiring one attempt at the defendant’s home (§ 415.20(b)(3)) applies only to individuals, so it never reaches service on a business.
Everything else applies regardless of whether the property is commercial or residential. That includes the photo, date, time and GPS stamp on the proof of service; the public register of process servers; the new motion-to-set-aside framework; and the requirement that UD complaints document service of the termination notice.
AB 747 does not change the rules for virtual businesses, and the existing framework already handles them.
Every California entity, and every foreign entity registered to do business in the state, must designate an agent for service of process with a California street address under Corporations Code §§ 1502, 17701.13, and 17701.16. That designation is publicly searchable on the Secretary of State’s website. Service goes to the agent at the address of record, even if that address turns out to be a virtual office, coworking space, or commercial mail-receiving agency. Substituted service under § 415.20(a) can be attempted at the listed location, with the new photo, date, time and GPS documentation showing the door or entrance.
If the agent cannot be found at the address of record with reasonable diligence, Corporations Code § 1702 allows service on the Secretary of State by court order. If no method of service works at all, the recently amended § 413.30 (operative January 1, 2026) lets the court authorize service by email or other electronic technology, on a detailed showing of diligence at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found.
So a process server’s task does not change much: serve at the address of record, document the attempt under the new rules, and if that genuinely fails, use the existing statutory escape valves.
Drop service
AB 747 doesn’t address drop service by name, and California courts have long recognized it as a form of personal service under Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 when a defendant refuses to physically take the papers. The legal effect of drop service is unchanged.
What does change is the documentation. Because drop service is personal service under § 415.10, the new § 417.10(a)(1) photo, date, time and GPS requirements apply. The process server will need to take a photo of the location where the papers were dropped, with the readable stamp, and complete item 8 on the revised POS-010. The usual safety and signal-availability exceptions apply. The server’s affidavit should also continue to describe the circumstances justifying drop service, such as the defendant’s refusal to accept the papers, identification of the defendant, and the announcement that the papers are court documents.
Sheriff service
AB 747 applies to sheriffs and marshals on the same terms as everyone else. Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10 makes no exemption for sheriff service, so the photo, date, time and GPS documentation must accompany the proof of service when a sheriff serves a summons and complaint by personal service, substituted service, or UD posting. The three-attempts reasonable diligence standard for substituted service and UD posting applies equally.
Two existing differences for sheriffs are preserved. First, sheriffs and marshals are not required to register as process servers under Business and Professions Code § 22350, so the registration-number requirement in § 417.40 does not apply to them, and the revised POS-010 includes a dedicated checkbox at item 7e(1) for “a California sheriff or marshal.” Second, sheriffs may certify the proof of service rather than declaring under penalty of perjury, and the revised POS-010 preserves that option at item 9b.
In practice, the operational impact on sheriffs is significant. Most sheriff’s civil divisions will need to equip deputies with phones or cameras capable of producing the required automatically-stamped photographs, and update their case management systems to attach those photos to proofs of service. The Invitation to Comment (SPR26-08) flags these as expected implementation burdens.
Diligence and evidence requirements: Photos, GPS, and more
The photo requirement is about the location of the service, and specifically requires a photo of the entranceway. The photo requirement is not a requirement to take a photo of a person.
Under new CCP section 417.10, the server must take a photo of the site of each effected or attempted service. Additionally, the photo requirement applies regardless of who is served, as it is triggered by the method of service, not by who accepts the papers.
The law describes what the photo should be of:
- If a dwelling: The door or the entrance of the house, apartment, or dwelling if the door isn’t reasonably accessible.
- If a business: The door or the entrance of the specific office or business if the door isn’t reasonably accessible.
The photo requirements apply to every attempt at service, not just the successful ones. Under CCP 417.10(a)(1), the proof of service must include “one or more photographs of the site of each effected or attempted service of the summons and complaint.”
All smartphones capture this data but of course, we believe that One Legal is the best app on the market to ensure Compliance. When you use One Legal for your process serving, all of our vetted, hand-picked process servers will use the One Legal app which promises both compliance and higher serve success rates.
Yes, exactly. This is what the law requires.
Nothing in the law requires or mentions body cameras.
No, just the entranceway
Yes – the point is to prove that the attempt took place at the time/place that the server is claiming.
The requirement is to take a picture of the entranceway at the time of service. Most servers will walk up to a door, snap a picture, and then knock.
Yes. The law calls for “a readable stamp that establishes and automatically records the date, time, and GPS (or equivalent) coordinates” on each photograph (CCP 417.10(a)(1)(A)). “Readable stamp” suggests the data needs to be visible on the photo itself, though this may be clarified prior to Jan 1.
Regarding filing with the court, section 417.10(a)(1) is clear that the proof of service shall include the photographs. The law doesn’t carve out an exception for the photos. Nor does it address privacy carve outs.
The Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee of the CA Judicial Council has issued new forms for comment, including a revised POS-010, SC-104, and NC-121. These forms do incorporate specific language in response to the SPARE Act. Comments are due by May 18, 2026. Here’s a link if you’d like to take a look: https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/itc/spr26-08.pdf.
It will likely be clarified, but most likely means an imprint on top of the photograph itself.
Probably, yes.
They don’t need to be but we recommend an app like One Legal (which all of our process servers use) for seamless compliance and workflow management.
The photo requirement still applies even if serving outside of a person’s home or workplace. However, the entranceway element would be moot.
Regarding the dwelling attempt requirement, that would only come into play in the event of substituted service or alternative service. So someone is successfully served elsewhere, that’s personal service and service is completed. However, the compliance with photo, date/time stamp, and GPS requirements would still be necessary.
The law doesn’t apply in that situation. It’s clearly scoped to personal service (CCP 415.10), substituted service (CCP 415.20) and postings in UD cases (415.30).
Section 417.10(a)(1) is clear that the proof of service shall include the photographs. The law doesn’t carve out an exception for the photos. Nor does it address privacy carve outs. The Judicial Council is expected to issue new forms (likely a revised POS-010) before Jan 1, and that may address the mechanics by which the photos are attached/submitted.
The law’s referral to “GPS or equivalent coordinates” means the latitude and longitude values that identify a precise location on the Earth’s surface. GPS means “Global Positioning System,” a network of satellites that capture this data.
When you take a photo on a smartphone these are captured automatically and stored in the photo’s metadata. So, just take a picture on your phone.
The bill does not speak to that scenario and so it’s likely that will be brought up in any clean up bill.
You’re right that the absence of cell signal doesn’t physically prevent a photo from being taken. The statute distinguishes between two different reasons for not having a fully compliant photograph, and they’re treated as separate exceptions in Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10(a).
No photo at all: the safety exception (§ 417.10(a)(4)). A photo can be omitted entirely only when, in the reasonable judgment of the process server, taking a photograph would compromise the server’s safety. The server must provide a detailed written statement explaining why. This is the only basis on which no photo at all is acceptable. The draft revised POS-010 reflects this at item 8b, which asks the server to explain the safety risk.
Photo without a GPS stamp: the signal exception (§ 417.10(a)(1)(B)). If GPS, mobile, or equivalent signal is not available at the time and place of service, the photo can still be taken (and must be), but it will lack the automatic GPS coordinates in the stamp. In that case, the server must provide a detailed written statement on or with the proof of service explaining the lack of a readable GPS stamp. The photo itself, with whatever date and time information is available, still needs to be attached. The draft revised POS-010 reflects this at item 8a(1)(b).
So your instinct is correct: lack of signal is not a basis for omitting the photo entirely. It only excuses the GPS-coordinate portion of the stamp, and even then only with a detailed written explanation. The only acceptable basis for omitting the photograph itself is a reasonable safety judgment by the server, again with a detailed written explanation.
The statute doesn’t define “compromise the server’s safety” or “detailed statement,” so courts will develop that case-by-case. Examples that would likely qualify include a hostile or threatening recipient, the presence of weapons, an aggressive dog, or an active confrontation. Examples that probably wouldn’t qualify on their own include general discomfort, the neighborhood being unfamiliar, or the server simply forgetting to take the photo.
Yes, the photograph is submitted with the proof of service when it is filed with the court. The statute and the draft revised POS-010 both confirm this.
Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10(a)(1), as amended, says: “The proof of service shall include one or more photographs of the site of each effected or attempted service of the summons and complaint.” The word “include” tracks the form: the photos travel with the proof of service into the court record at the time of filing.
The draft revised POS-010 in SPR26-08 reflects this directly. New item 8 (“Photo of the location of service”) requires the server to check the box and either confirm “I have attached a photo of where I served the papers” (item 8a) or check the safety-exception box and explain (item 8b). The form contemplates the photo being attached as part of the filing, not held back by the process-serving vendor and produced only on demand.
When service is effected somewhere other than a residence or a place of business, the photo requirement still applies, but the door-or-entrance rule does not.
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 417.10(a)(2), the door-or-entrance requirement applies only when the site of service is a dwelling or a place of business. For service at a beach, on a street, in a parking lot, at a park, or anywhere else that isn’t a residence or business, the server simply photographs the site of service itself, with the readable date, time and GPS stamp. The draft revised POS-010 reflects this at item 8a(2)(a), which is the “No” checkbox indicating the location was neither a home nor a business.
Practically, that means a photo of the spot where the papers were handed to or dropped at the defendant’s feet: a stretch of beach, a sidewalk, the area in front of where the person was sitting or walking. The photo doesn’t need to include the defendant, just the location. The stamp does the work of tying that location to a specific time and set of coordinates.
The usual exceptions still apply: no photo required if taking one would compromise the server’s safety, and a written explanation if GPS or cell signal is not available.
Who must comply? Registered v. All servers + registration requirements
Yes, the new rules apply regardless of whether the person doing the serving is a registered process server. The requirements attach to the service itself and the proof of service, not to who performs it.
The diligence and evidence requirements apply to everyone.
Registration requirements for PIs are unchanged. But the diligence and evidence requirements apply regardless of who is doing the serving.
No, the law does not amend the registration threshold set out in Business & Professions Code 22350, which is what defines who has to register. What the law changed on the registration front is narrow: the county clerk’s register of registered process servers must now be publicly available starting Jan 1, 2027. Remember, the reasonable diligence requirements apply to all service, regardless of whether the server is registered.
The law doesn’t change the registration or bond requirements for PIs. Under B&P Code 22350(b)(4) PIs are already exempt from process server registration and AB747 doesn’t change that. So, as a PI, you don’t have to register with the county or put down a bond.
No. AB 747 does not change the registration requirements in Business and Professions Code § 22350, and being a notary public has never been a basis for either requiring or exempting someone from process server registration.
Registration is triggered by the activity of serving process, not by holding another credential. Under § 22350, a natural person must register only if they serve process for specific compensation more than 10 times in California in a single calendar year. A corporation or partnership that derives compensation from service of process in California must register regardless of volume. Several categories of people are exempt from registration even when they exceed the threshold, including attorneys and their employees, licensed private investigators and their employees, peace officers, sheriffs and marshals, and professional photocopiers serving only records subpoenas. Notaries are not on that exempt list.
So a notary public who serves process is subject to the same rule as anyone else: if you serve fewer than 11 times a year for compensation and aren’t doing it as part of a corporate or partnership business, you don’t need to register. If you cross the 10-per-year threshold, you need to register just like any other natural person, unless one of the listed exemptions independently applies. Performing notarial acts is a separate function under Government Code §§ 8200 and following and has no bearing on the process-server registration analysis.
Potluck questions
Nope! Although AB 747 introduces additional requirements, One Legal customer pricing for service of process is not impacted, and that is because One Legal’s service, as it stands today, already provides this data.
AB747 didn’t change this, it’s always been mandatory to use the Judicial Council form. CCP 417.10(f) says now (and will still say after Jan 1) “all proof of personal service shall be made on a form adopted by the judicial council.” The current POS-010 form is a mandatory form under Rules of Court, rule 1.31.
They will need to be.
Yes, new and revised Judicial Council forms are being created. They’re currently in public comment and not yet adopted. AB 747 implementation is split across four parallel Invitations to Comment, organized by subject-matter committee, all with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2027 and a public comment deadline of May 18, 2026:
- SPR26-08 (Civil and Small Claims): the main civil-summons package, which includes the revised POS-010 (Proof of Service of Summons), the new POS-012 (Declaration of Diligence), the new POS-060 (Proof of Alternative Service—Restraining Order), the new CH-205/EA-205 (Request for Alternative Service), and revisions to CIV-050, CIV-100, CIV-105, EJ-110, EJ-115, NC-121, NC-221/NC-321/NC-521, SC-104, SC-104A, and SC-104B. This is the package you uploaded earlier.
- SPR26-07 (Unlawful Detainer): revises UD-100 (the unlawful detainer complaint) and related forms to implement AB 246, AB 747, and AB 863.
- SPR26-21 (Family and Juvenile Law): revises domestic violence and related family-law forms to implement AB 747 and SB 85, including the equivalent of CH-117 for domestic violence (DV-117).
- SPR26-34 (Probate and Mental Health): revises probate forms to implement AB 747.
All four packages are accessible from the Judicial Council’s Invitations to Comment page at https://courts.ca.gov/policy-administration/invitations-comment.
On county-specific forms: AB 747 does not create or require any county-specific forms. The new and revised forms are statewide Judicial Council forms. Some counties have their own local forms or local-rule cover sheets that supplement statewide forms (Los Angeles, Alameda, Ventura, and Orange are common examples), but those are independent of AB 747 and unaffected by it. Local forms typically address court-specific filing procedures, case assignments, or local rules, not the substantive service requirements that AB 747 changes. A process server’s documentation under AB 747 will be the same in every California county.
Yes, the public register will be available to the public starting January 1, 2027. Under Business and Professions Code § 22355, as amended by AB 747, each county clerk’s register of process servers “shall be publicly available.” Before AB 747, the register existed but public access varied by county. Many county clerks already made the register accessible in practice, so for process servers in those counties the change is incremental. The practical effect of AB 747 is uniformity: every county must provide public access on the same terms.
The privacy and safety concern is real and was raised during the legislative process. The register contains the server’s name, age, address, physical description, signature, photograph, place of business, employer (if any), registration number, and bond information. The Legislature considered the concern and chose transparency anyway, on the rationale stated in Section 1 of the bill that public accountability outweighs the privacy cost for a regulated and bonded occupation.
Within the existing framework, the main mitigation options are to register a business address rather than a home address where possible, and, for those who qualify (victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, elder or dependent adult abuse, and reproductive health care workers and patients), to use the Safe at Home address confidentiality program under Government Code § 6206.
No. Family law uses its own proofs of service, primarily FL-115 (Proof of Service of Summons) for the initial petition and FL-330/FL-335 for subsequent filings. AB 747’s photo, date, time and GPS requirements still apply to family law summons service through a parallel set of revised forms being developed by the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee under SPR26-21, not through POS-010.
