A new California law will take effect on January 1, 2026 that increases the penalties for people accused of paying for sex when the other person is underage.

AB 379 expands felony exposure in cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds when the accused adult is meaningfully older, and it also brings back a misdemeanor “loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex” charge.

If you’re being investigated for “buying,” attempting to buy, or even positioning yourself to buy, the consequences can escalate fast, and the details of the evidence matter immediately.

If you or someone you love has been accused of soliciting sex from someone who is underage, a skilled defense attorney can help. Contact the Helfend Law Group today to start building your defense.

Call Today – 800-834-6434

What changes on January 1, 2026

AB 379 (Chapter 82, Statutes of 2025) takes two big steps that matter in real cases:

It expands felony exposure for adults accused of soliciting a minor when the age gap is significant, including 16- and 17-year-olds.
It creates a new misdemeanor offense for loitering with the intent to purchase commercial sex, bringing back a loitering-based tool that had been removed in prior years, but refocused on buyers.

The law also adds a required $1,000 fine in certain buyer cases that is directed into a survivor support fund, and it builds infrastructure aimed at increasing human trafficking prosecutions. The practical takeaway is simple: more cases will be filed more aggressively, and more people will be arrested earlier in the “investigation” based on behavior and alleged intent.

Felony exposure for adults who solicit 16- and 17-year-olds

Before AB 379, prosecutors often needed one of two things to file the solicitation-of-a-minor case as a felony-level offense: the minor being under 16, or proof that the minor was a trafficking victim. AB 379 adds a third route.

Starting January 1, 2026, an adult can face a felony-level filing option (a “wobbler,” meaning it can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony) when the person solicited is more than three years younger than the defendant. In plain English, that typically means at least a four-year age gap.

This matters most for 16- and 17-year-olds because it gives prosecutors a way to treat those cases more like trafficking-demand cases even when they can’t (or don’t want to) litigate whether trafficking occurred.

What the prosecutor must prove in a solicitation-of-a-minor case

These cases commonly rise and fall on proof problems. To charge an adult under the solicitation-of-a-minor framework, the prosecution generally focuses on:

The defendant is 18 or older
The person solicited is a minor
The defendant knew or should have known the person was a minor
The conduct fits solicitation, agreement, or an act tied to prostitution
For the expanded felony exposure, the minor was more than three years younger than the defendant (or other felony-triggering circumstances apply)

That “knew or should have known” language is where a lot of fights happen. Prosecutors often lean on messages, profile details, statements made in an interview, or “context” offered by law enforcement to argue the defendant should have known.

How penalties change when it becomes a wobbler

Once a case fits the wobbler category, sentencing exposure escalates:

Misdemeanor option: county jail exposure up to one year, and fines that can be significant. There is also a mandatory minimum jail component written into the framework, although courts can reduce it in unusual cases when the interests of justice are best served.
Felony option: felony sentencing exposure measured in months/years, not days. The common felony range in this structure is 16 months, two years, or three years.

If there is a second or subsequent violation in the wobbler category, the law authorizes felony punishment.

AB 379 also adds consequences that follow you even when you avoid a prison sentence. If probation is granted in a wobbler case, the court is directed to order completion of an education program related to human trafficking and the exploitation of children, without charging a participation fee.

The overlooked add-on: mandatory buyer fines

AB 379 also adds a required additional fine of $1,000 in certain “buyer” scenarios. That matters for two reasons:

It increases the immediate financial impact of a conviction.
It changes plea leverage, because fines and assessments are often part of how these cases get negotiated.

Even when jail is avoided, the combination of required fines, probation terms, classes, and the long-term impact of a sex-related allegation can be life-altering.

How these cases are investigated in the real world

Most buyers do not get arrested in a dramatic “caught in the act” scenario. Many arrests begin earlier, with investigators building a case around communications and intent.

Common investigative patterns include:

Online operations: undercover officers or task force investigators pose as a seller, a buyer, or an intermediary and communicate through apps, text messages, or social platforms.
Decoy stings: law enforcement sets up operations in areas they associate with commercial sex transactions and watches for behaviors they say indicate intent.
“Buyer sweep” operations: coordinated efforts where multiple arrests happen over a short period, sometimes with press releases that amplify the reputational damage.

AB 379 makes the early stages more dangerous for the accused because it increases the number of situations where prosecutors can credibly threaten felony filing.

Defense pressure points in AB 379 solicitation cases

When the allegations involve a 16- or 17-year-old, the emotional temperature rises. That makes it even more important to focus on what the evidence actually proves.

Identity and attribution

Many operations rely on a phone number, an account, or a device. That does not automatically prove who was using it.

Key questions include:

Who created the account and controlled it?
Who sent the messages?
Where was the device physically located?
What confirms the defendant’s identity beyond assumptions?

Knowledge of age

The prosecution must prove the defendant knew or should have known the other person was a minor. That is not the same as “the person was a minor.”

Defense work often focuses on:

What was actually said about age, and when
Whether age was misrepresented
Whether law enforcement influenced the narrative after the fact
Whether the “should have known” claim is supported by concrete facts or just hindsight

Intent versus fantasy, talk, or ambiguity

A surprising number of cases involve vague conversations, posturing, or messages that never turn into a real agreement.

If the evidence is messy, inconsistent, or missing key steps, that can create room to argue:

There was no true agreement
There was no specific intent
The supposed plan was never real, never finalized, or never acted on

Entrapment and overreach

Undercover operations have rules. If the government induces someone who was not predisposed to commit the crime, that can become a serious defense issue.

Illegal searches and seizures

These cases often involve phone searches, vehicle stops, and warrant issues. Suppression of evidence can change the entire posture of the case.

Loitering with intent to purchase commercial sex is back as a misdemeanor

AB 379 adds a new law that makes it unlawful to loiter in a public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex.

This is not the same as “solicitation.” It’s designed to allow enforcement earlier, based on behavior and alleged intent rather than a completed transaction.

What “loitering with intent” means in practice

The law describes intent as being evidenced by behavior and circumstances that openly demonstrate a purpose of inducing, enticing, or soliciting prostitution, or procuring someone to commit prostitution. Examples include:

Circling an area in a motor vehicle
Repeatedly beckoning to, contacting, or attempting to contact or stop pedestrians or other motorists
Making unauthorized stops along areas law enforcement associates with prostitution activity
Other conduct that officers claim indicates an intent to purchase

That last category is where real-world risk lives. “Other conduct” invites subjective interpretation, and subjective interpretation is where wrongful arrests and overcharging happen.

Penalties and mandatory fines

This offense is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors can carry jail exposure and fines. AB 379 also adds a required additional $1,000 fine tied to this offense, with the money directed into a survivor support fund.

Even if the case resolves without custody time, the consequences can still include probation terms, financial penalties, and a public-facing allegation that can damage employment, licensing, and reputation.

What to do if you are being investigated or arrested

If you learn you are under investigation, or you are arrested in a sting or loitering operation, the early decisions matter.

Do not try to “explain it” to law enforcement. Explanations get reshaped into admissions.
Do not consent to searches. Politely say no and ask for your lawyer.
Do not delete messages or data. That can create new legal problems and destroys defenses that depend on context.
Write down details immediately: who contacted you, what was said, where it happened, and what officers did.
Get counsel involved before you make statements, attend an “interview,” or try to negotiate on your own.

Talk to Helfend Law Group before you talk to anyone else

AB 379 increases felony exposure in cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds, and it brings back a loitering-based enforcement tool aimed at buyers. If you are accused of solicitation, attempted purchase, or loitering with intent, you need a defense strategy built around evidence, intent, and procedure from day one.

Contact Helfend Law Group at 800-834-6434 to discuss your situation, understand what you’re facing under the new law, and start protecting your record immediately.

Published December 24, 2025.