Editor’s note: This op-ed references AB 2674, a 2025 bill by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo that would have imposed new fraud-prevention requirements on banks and credit unions. The bill was never signed into law — its number was later repurposed by the Legislature for unrelated legislation.
By Jim Mahoney, Jr.
It was an April morning in 2024. I missed two calls that morning, at 8:50 and 8:53. When it rang again at 9:35, I answered, and let a stranger steal a chunk of my savings away.
She said she was calling from my bank. She was calm, polite, and even had a SoCal accent. There had been a charge on my debit card in Arizona. Did I recognize it? I didn’t. My card had been compromised, and a new one was on its way. She just needed a few details.
So, I gave her my name, my date of birth, my card number. That was all it took. By the end of the day, whoever was on the other end of that call had used those details to have a bank issue a new debit card in my name.
When they called back the next morning to ask for my security code, I apprehensively gave that up too. But I should have trusted my gut – something was off, and I knew I’d made a mistake.
I was right. While this scammer kept me talking, I picked up another phone and logged into my account. Then I watched my money disappear in front of me. Five thousand out of my savings. Then three thousand more. Then ATM withdrawals across Burbank, two hundred at a time, from an account I’d spent my whole life filling.
What happened to me wasn’t just bad luck, but rather the unfortunate, predictable result of a system that still hasn’t figured out how to stop criminal scammers from running these operations, or how to hold accountable the platforms that often let them run and perpetuate them.
Last year, Americans reported losing a record $12.5 billion to scams, a 25% increase from the year before. That’s drained savings, dented retirements, and left families already stretched thin by groceries and rent losing money they can’t afford to lose.
California is at a pivotal moment. This fall, voters will choose a new governor. Before we vote, I hope the candidates are asked a hard question about this topic: what does consumer protection mean in a state that also wants to be the innovation capital of the world?
Because those two things do not have to be in conflict – but only if we’re honest about what works and what doesn’t.
What would have protected me? Going after the scammers at the source of these types of crimes and the platforms they use to reach us. Piling new compliance costs onto businesses and adding more rules for honest companies to navigate misses the mark and never would have protected me or the millions of other California residents who unfortunately fall victim to fraud and scams every day.
This means giving law enforcement resources to trace stolen money, coordinate across state lines, and shut these operations down at the source before they dial their next victim. It means holding the telecom networks and digital platforms that knowingly host and enable these scams to a higher standard of accountability – not after the damage is done, but before.
California’s legislature has shown its desire in getting this issue right. But when it returns to session, it should be careful about the path it chooses. Last session, Sacramento considered legislation (AB 2674) that would have added significant compliance burdens to every business in the state – slowing down routine transactions and creating new legal exposure for ordinary financial activity – while doing little to stop the scammers who are already breaking the law. That bill may be on ice for now, but the impulse behind it isn’t going away.
The question the next governor and this new consumer agency will have to answer is whether California pursues consumer protection that targets the bad actors or consumer protection that looks busy while the scammers keep dialing.
Picture the California that gets this right. A man like me answers a suspicious call and it goes nowhere, because law enforcement already shut the operation down. A small business grows instead of drowning in compliance costs for a problem it didn’t cause. Entrepreneurs innovate and grow their business in a state that knows how to protect people without punishing them.
Now picture the other road: more rules every year on honest people, while the scammers, who never followed a rule in their lives, keep running their operations from burner phones.
So, to the candidates for governor, and to Rohit Chopra: point your aim at the people committing fraud and scams, not the businesses and everyday people trying to live their lives. Chase the criminals to the source by funding law enforcement and demanding greater accountability from Big Tech. You can do this while still leaving room for a California that is competitive and affordable for everyone.
James E. Mahoney, Esq. is a renowned attorney with nearly 40 years of experience in entertainment, sports, intellectual property, and corporate law. Mahoney has run the Law Offices of James E. Mahoney for over 35 years, where he has negotiated deals for high-value intellectual property and digital art intellectual property issues, among many others. James Mahoney is a voice for the Los Angeles entertainment sector as Founder and CEO of Mahoney Entertainment.
Editor’s Note: It is the policy of Los Angeles County Politics to run all submitted op-eds with rare exception. The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Los Angeles County Politics.
