My building provides internet service to all apartments and includes the cost as a monthly charge. A tenant says she wants to use a different provider and stop paying for the building’s service. Do I have to allow this election, even if the internet charge is included in the operative lease agreement?
Yes, you must adhere to this choice. Both local and state laws grant tenants the right to choose their own internet service. Effective January 1, 2026, California Assembly Bill 1414 requires housing providers to allow residents to opt out of mandatory, pre-packaged internet, cellular, or satellite service subscriptions. This legislation covers all residential tenancies that begin, renew, or continue on a month-to-month basis on or after January 1, 2026. While bulk billing arrangements are still permitted, housing providers must offer an opt-out option. Tenants electing to cancel the building’s bulk service may deduct the cost of the unwanted third-party subscription from their rent, and owners are prohibited from retaliating against tenants who say “no” to the building’s designated service provider.
AB 1414 is codified in Civil Code section 1942.8 and reads, in relevant part, as follows:
“For any residential tenancy commenced, renewed, or continuing on a month-to- month or other periodic basis, on or after January 1, 2026, a landlord or their agent shall allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third- party internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy. … A landlord or their agent shall not retaliate against a tenant for exercising the tenant’s rights under this [law] …. If the landlord … violates [this law], the tenant may deduct the cost of the subscription to the internet third-party internet service provider from their rent….”
Please also remember that since 2016, San Francisco tenants in buildings with four or more units have the right to choose their own internet service provider (ISP) under Article 52 of the SF Police Code. Under this now decade-old law, a building owner cannot stop an ISP from accessing the building to install hardware. That said, a property owner may require the ISP to “conform to such reasonable conditions as the property owner deems necessary to protect the safety, functioning, and appearance of the property….” In addition, as a condition to install the ISP equipment, the owner may: i. require the ISP to provide a certificate of insurance evidencing coverage generally mandated by the owner for contractors performing comparable work on the property; ii. require the installers to be properly licensed; iii. require that all necessary permits be obtained to perform the installation work; iv. require the ISP to install and pay for any necessary electrical service to operate the equipment; and v. require the ISP to remove the equipment and to restore the impacted areas of the property to its pre-installation condition when the equipment is no longer needed. Ignoring this law may invite serious consequences such as a civil lawsuit by the impacted tenants, the ISP, and/or the City Attorney.
In sum, while you remain free to offer bulk services to your residents, understand that they maintain the ability to opt out of this service and to require installation of equipment from an ISP of their choosing. Indeed, you may have noticed the plethora of advertisements that regularly turn up in the building’s mail from the local ISP companies! So please respect this right and understand your obligations and responsibilities to accommodate resident requests to subscribe to alternative internet service providers.