California Lawmakers Shield Predators, Stalling Felony Penalties for Buying Sex from 16 and 17-Year-Olds

Despite AB 379’s bipartisan support, California Assembly Democrats backed down on key provisions within the groundbreaking anti-trafficking bill, leaving 16 and 17-year-old victims without full legal protection from teen traffickers.

On Tuesday, April 29th, California lawmakers blocked an effort that would have made buying sex from 16 and 17-year-olds a felony. AB 379, a bill meant to put a lid on the child sex trafficking industry, is set to move forward in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, but concerns were raised after news broke that the bill would not include the proposed felony charge.

Many would be shocked to hear that, historically, soliciting sex with a child under 18 years of age had been designated as a misdemeanor in California. Last year, in an effort to ensure the punishment fit the crime, Republican State Senator Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) introduced a proposal to make it a felony. SB 1414, authored by Grove, was amended by Senate Democrats to only count this crime as a misdemeanor––not a felony––if the victimized minors were 16 or 17. 

The bill passed in its amended state. AB 379––a bipartisan effort from Sen. Grove and Assemblywoman Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento)––was then introduced to close the 16 and 17-year-old loophole. Supporters, such as 3Strands Global Foundation CEO Ashlie Bryant, called the bill “a critical step forward in protecting vulnerable communities, strengthening prevention efforts, and ensuring survivors receive the support they deserve.”

But ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, KCRA News California Capitol Correspondent Ashley Zavala reported that the Assembly Public Safety dropped the bill from their committee agenda, despite the bill facing a key deadline just a few days later on May 2nd.

“It is shameful that any elected representative in California would need to debate whether purchasing a child for sex should be a felony. Californians deserve to know which representatives oppose classifying this heinous act as a felony,” wrote one concerned citizen, Michael Jester, in response to Zavala.

AB 379 co-author Asm. Krell released a statement in the evening on April 28th denouncing how the bill had been altered to remove key provisions in place to protect minors.

“In order to get a hearing on the bill, we were forced to remove the piece of the bill that ensures the crime of purchasing a minor for sex applies in all cases where the victim is under the age of 18. I wholeheartedly disagree with that amendment,” Asm. Krell posted. She later added:

“But the current version of #AB379 still criminalizes the creeps who are loitering to buy teenagers for sex and sets up a fund to help victims.”

According to KCRA, the Assembly Public Safety Committee, led by the relatively-new Assemblyman Nick Shultz (D-Burbank), not only excluded the victimization of older children from receiving felony charges, but they also called for “info hearings” later this year to discuss the issue further. But critics online have been quick to question what nuance there really is when it comes to child trafficking.

“I’ve called [Asm. Shultz’s] office twice. We’re trying to figure out what’s going on,” said Zavala. “Politico this morning is actually reporting that he is considering holding off on this bill and maybe having hearings in the Fall to dissect this issue. Critics of that move note that they’ve been dissecting this issue for the last couple of years.”

“Assembly Dems should enlighten the rest of us on the 'nuance' of child trafficking, before they have the Senate kill it for them in committee,” wrote Twitter/X user Matt Quan.

After the buzz began to spread on social media, Asm. Shultz appeared to make private one of his two X accounts: @VoteNickShultz. While his other account, @AsmNickSchultz, remains public, his or his team’s decision to shield this account from public scrutiny––of which is intensifying on social media across partly lines––may draw suspicions.

Though the bill did not fail by default, as previously feared with its unscheduling from Tuesday’s committee, many Californians feel that Tuesday’s outcome protects predators.

“Apparently we now need an 'informational hearing' to decide whether having sex with children should be a felony,” said the Assembly Republican Caucus. “Who exactly are Assembly Democrats representing?”

Even Governor Gavin Newsom, the leading voice in Sacramento’s progressive coalition came out to support AB 370. “The law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same—as a felony, regardless of the intended victim’s age. Full stop,” read a statement from Newsom. 

In 2023, the National Human Trafficking Hotline received 3,152 signals from California alone, which led to the identification of 2,045 human trafficking victims. Of those cases, nearly 300 victims were identified as minors. Underage sex trafficking hubs like Los Angeles’s Figueroa Street are notorious hotbeds of crime, where, in modern times, many victims as young as 12 are recruited on TikTok or Instagram and forced into sex labor. When loitering for sex was decriminalized in 2023, law enforcement started to face more challenges in identifying and assisting underage victims.

Despite California having invested over $280 million to combat human trafficking since 2019, many may wonder if throwing more money at the problem has tangible effects––or if victims would be better protected by legislation like the original bill co-authored by Asm. Krell and Sen. Grove.

“Why are we protecting [predators]?” asked Sacramento County Sheriff and former Assembly Member Jim Cooper. “They’re abusing young girls, it makes zero sense.”