California AB 250: A 2026 Revival Window for Adult Sexual Assault Survivors

Much of the public conversation about sexual abuse and the law has centered on children — and rightly so. But a great many survivors were adults when they were assaulted: at work, in a doctor’s office, at a place of worship, on a date, or in the care of someone they were supposed to be able to trust. For years, many of those survivors were quietly told the same thing when they finally felt ready to come forward: too much time has passed, and there is nothing the civil courts can do.

In California, that is no longer the last word. A law known as AB 250 has reopened the courthouse doors for adult survivors of sexual assault — but only for a limited time, and only under specific conditions. This guide explains, in plain language, what AB 250 does, who it reaches, the one requirement most survivors have never heard of when the defendant is an institution, and how a survivor can use the window while keeping their privacy protected. It is written for survivors and the people who stand beside them. It is not a pitch, and it does not promise any outcome.

What AB 250 Actually Does

AB 250 amended California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 to create a limited revival window — a defined stretch of time during which claims that would otherwise be too old can be brought anyway. The window runs from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. During those two years, an adult survivor of sexual assault in California may file a civil claim that the ordinary statute of limitations would have closed, no matter how long ago the assault occurred. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law on October 13, 2025.

A revival window is different from the ordinary deadline. Outside a revival window, section 340.16 gives an adult survivor of sexual assault the later of ten years from the assault or three years from the date they discover an injury caused by it. AB 250 sets that ordinary clock aside for two years and says, in effect: if your claim expired, you may bring it now — but the door closes again at the end of 2027.

Who AB 250 Reaches — a Category Long Left Out

The most important thing about AB 250 is who it is for. Earlier waves of reform in California and other states focused on childhood sexual abuse. AB 250 is different: it reaches people who were adults — eighteen or older — at the time of the assault. That is a meaningful expansion, because adult survivors have often been the least likely to hear that the law has anything left to offer them.

This includes situations that adult survivors frequently assume fall outside “abuse” law entirely — an assault by a supervisor or coworker, by a coach or clergy member, by a caregiver or medical provider, or by an acquaintance. AB 250 does not ask a survivor to have been a child. It asks whether they were sexually assaulted and whether their claim otherwise fits the window’s conditions.

The Window Is Short — and It Does Not Renew

Revival windows are, by design, temporary. AB 250’s runs for exactly two years and then ends. For a survivor whose ordinary deadline has already passed, this window is not one option among several — it is frequently the only path to bring the claim in civil court at all.

Suing an Institution Requires a “Cover Up” — and an NDA Can Count

Here is the part of AB 250 that most survivors have never heard, and it is the part that most often decides whether a case against an organization can proceed. The revival window treats the individual abuser and an institution differently.

Against the person who committed the assault, the revived claim stands on the assault itself. But to bring a revived claim against an entity — an employer, a school, a church, a medical practice, or another organization — AB 250 requires the survivor to allege that the entity, or one of its agents, engaged in or attempted a cover up of sexual assault. The statute describes a cover up as a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that keeps information from becoming public or from reaching the survivor. Crucially, the law states that a cover up includes, but is not limited to, the use of nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements.

That last point is worth sitting with. An institution that quietly paid off an earlier victim and made them sign a nondisclosure agreement did not just wrong that one person — under AB 250, that act of silencing can be exactly the kind of concealment that makes an institutional claim possible for a later survivor. It connects directly to a pattern we have written about before: the way organizations hide sexual abuse, and what their own records reveal, and the growing body of law — from Trey’s Law and the federal Speak Out Act — that is stripping the power from those agreements. AB 250 approaches the same problem from another direction: it turns an institution’s use of silence into a reason it can be held accountable.

An Honest Limitation: Public Entities Are Excluded

No survivor is well served by a guide that oversells the law, so this limit belongs up front. AB 250 focuses on private defendants. It expressly does not revive claims against public entities — for example, a public school district, a public university, or a government agency. A survivor whose assault involved a public institution is not necessarily without options, but AB 250’s revival window is generally not the vehicle, and different rules and much shorter deadlines can apply to claims against government bodies. This is one of the most important reasons to have a specific situation evaluated rather than assuming the window fits — or assuming it does not.

You Can Still File Privately

For many survivors, the fear of exposure looms as large as any legal deadline. Using the AB 250 window does not require a survivor to announce their identity to the world. California courts have long permitted survivors of sexual offenses to proceed under a pseudonym — as “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” — in appropriate circumstances, and to seek protective orders that limit how sensitive details are handled. Whether that protection is available turns on the facts of a particular case, and it is something a survivor can ask about confidentially at the very first conversation. We explain how this works in our guide to filing under a pseudonym. Choosing to protect a deadline and choosing to protect your privacy are not in tension — they can be done together.

How a Survivor-Focused Firm Approaches an AB 250 Claim

When a revival window is open, the first job of a survivor’s lawyer is to protect the deadline while quietly doing the work that a claim actually requires. As Alex Alvarez, Managing Partner and a Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer, frames it, a revival window is a rare second chance, and the worst outcome is a survivor who was ready but ran out of calendar. The firm’s early focus is to confirm which deadline genuinely applies to a survivor’s situation — the AB 250 window, an ordinary limitations period, or a different rule for a public entity — and to preserve the survivor’s ability to proceed before anything is filed publicly.

From there, the work turns to substance, and this is where an institutional claim is often won or lost. Because a claim against an organization depends on showing concealment, the records matter enormously. Herb Borroto, M.D., J.D., the firm’s Medical-Legal Expert, reviews clinical and institutional records the way few lawyers can — drawing out the details that corroborate a survivor’s account and reveal what an organization knew, when it knew it, and how it responded. Prior complaints, quiet transfers, and confidentiality agreements are not just background; under AB 250 they can be central to whether an institution answers for what it allowed. That careful, records-driven approach is the same one we bring to holding churches, schools, and organizations accountable.

Common Questions

What does California AB 250 do for adult sexual assault survivors?

AB 250 amended California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 to open a limited two-year revival window, running from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027, during which adult survivors of sexual assault may bring civil claims that were previously barred by the statute of limitations. It applies to people who were adults, eighteen or older, at the time of the assault, and it can apply no matter how long ago the assault occurred. A survivor may sue the individual who committed the assault, and may also sue a private institution that engaged in or attempted a cover up of sexual assault. Once the window closes on December 31, 2027, these revived adult claims generally cannot be brought again.

Do I have to sue during the AB 250 window, or can I wait?

The revival window is time-limited and does not renew. It runs only from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. A survivor whose ordinary deadline has already passed relies on this window to bring the claim at all, so waiting until the window closes can permanently foreclose the option. Because building a claim takes time, and because the facts of each survivor’s situation determine which deadline actually applies, survivors who are considering a case are generally advised to have their situation reviewed well before the window’s end rather than close to it.

Why does suing an institution under AB 250 require a cover up, and can an NDA count?

For claims against an entity rather than the individual abuser, AB 250 requires the survivor to allege that the entity, or its agents, engaged in or attempted a cover up of the sexual assault. The statute describes a cover up as a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that keeps information from becoming public or reaching the survivor, and it expressly includes the use of nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements. That means a nondisclosure agreement an institution used to keep a prior victim silent can itself be part of what qualifies the claim, because silencing earlier reports is one of the ways an institution hides an assault.

Can I still file privately if I use the AB 250 window?

In many cases, yes. California courts have long allowed survivors of sexual offenses to proceed under a pseudonym, such as Jane Doe or John Doe, in appropriate circumstances, and to seek protective orders that limit how sensitive information is shared. Choosing to use the AB 250 revival window does not require a survivor to make their identity public at the outset. Whether pseudonym filing is available depends on the specifics of the case, which is one of the first things a survivor can ask a lawyer to evaluate confidentially.

If You Are Considering a Case

If you were an adult when you were sexually assaulted in California, and you have long assumed it was simply too late, AB 250 may mean otherwise — but the window is open only through the end of 2027. You do not have to sort out which deadline applies on your own, and you do not have to be certain you want to move forward before finding out where you stand. A conversation with The Alvarez Law Firm costs nothing and is completely confidential. We listen first. We can help you understand whether the AB 250 window fits your situation, protect the deadline, explain how the process would work, and do it all while safeguarding your privacy from the start.

• How the state clocks work: Civil case deadlines — lookback windows by state.
• Another 2026 window for adults: NYC’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act reopening.
• When silence was forced on you: NDAs, Trey’s Law, and your right to speak.
• Filing without your name public: Pseudonym (“Jane Doe” / “John Doe”) filing.
• Filing without a criminal case: Why survivors can sue without a conviction.

Sources

• California Legislature — AB-250 Sexual assault: statute of limitations (bill text amending Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16; two-year revival window January 1, 2026 – December 31, 2027; definition of “cover up”; exclusion of public entities). leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16 (statute of limitations for civil actions arising from adult sexual assault). codes.findlaw.com
• Proskauer Rose LLP — “California Again Resurrects Stale Sexual Assault Claims” (analysis of the cover-up allegation requirement and the public-entity exclusion). proskauer.com
• Stokes Wagner — “California Reopens Time-Barred Adult Sexual Assault Claims Under AB 250” (window dates, eligibility for adults 18+, focus on private defendants). stokeswagner.com
• Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, LLP — “California Lookback Window for Adult Sexual Assault Survivors” (signed October 13, 2025; institutional concealment examples). sanfordheisler.com
• 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline — free, confidential support (call or text 988). 988lifeline.org
• RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) — National Sexual Assault Hotline, 1-800-656-HOPE. rainn.org