California’s Sexual Abuse Claims Crisis: Balancing Justice with Fraud Prevention

Six years ago, California’s passage of Assembly Bill 218 effectively eliminated the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims, opening courthouse doors to survivors seeking justice. The legislation has led to an unprecedented wave of claims, with Los Angeles County alone agreeing to a record-setting $4 billion settlement covering 11,000 claims in April 2025, followed by a proposal to settle 400 additional claims for $828 million in October.

However, troubling reports have emerged suggesting the county’s taxpayer-funded settlement process may include fabricated claims. According to these reports, some individuals received payment for filing false allegations of historical abuse. These revelations don’t invalidate legitimate survivors’ experiences but instead highlight the predictable consequences of the legislative policy that removed traditional time limits on sexual abuse claims.

Los Angeles County anticipated this problem and implemented court-approved safeguards to mitigate fraud risks. Every claimant must submit detailed factual statements under penalty of perjury, and independent retired judges evaluate claims, determining fair compensation while rejecting dubious allegations. County officials have emphasized their commitment to vigilant fraud detection throughout the settlement process.

The challenge lies in balancing efficiency with accuracy. Even legitimate claims often lack substantial documentation, may involve imperfect memories, and rarely have corroborating witnesses. When the Legislature chose to revive decades-old claims—some dating back to 1959—it created a system where even the best safeguards could only reduce, not eliminate, fraud risk.

Statutes of limitations exist precisely to prevent such complications. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in a 1944 ruling, these statutes “are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.”

When evidence disappears over time, determining truth becomes increasingly difficult. This fundamental reality was overlooked by the Legislature when it opened the floodgates to long-dormant claims while placing full financial responsibility on public entities like Los Angeles County. The situation has been exacerbated by the absence of caps on attorney fees and non-economic damages.

Both sexual assault survivors and the public bear the consequences of these policy decisions. When settlement funds are directed toward potentially false claims and excessive attorney fees, legitimate survivors face increased skepticism, and their compensation may be diluted. Meanwhile, taxpayers foot the bill for settlements potentially containing fabricated claims, leaving public entities with fewer resources for other essential services.

The convergence of money, scale, and sympathy—especially with incomplete evidence—creates inherent fraud risks in any mass compensation plan. Los Angeles County appears to have taken responsible steps by agreeing to substantial settlements while implementing rigorous claim-review processes to address both legitimate and potentially unjust claims.

The incentive structure created by the legislation deserves scrutiny. Without initial guidelines from the Legislature, claimants’ attorneys can collect unregulated high fees despite minimal risk or work, especially when evidence has vanished and trials are unlikely. This has created potential windfalls for some law firms that dwarf individual claimants’ compensation. While most firms filing sexual abuse claims operate ethically, instances of questionable professional standards warrant condemnation and accountability.

The broader issue stems from abandoning fundamental legal concepts without addressing inevitable consequences. Instead of providing a balanced approach, the Legislature simply removed time limitations without implementing realistic guardrails. Similar challenges have been addressed in other contexts, such as when California placed limits on medical malpractice claims through the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, which caps non-economic damages and attorney fees.

The financial implications extend far beyond the reported fraud cases. A January 2025 report by California’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team warned that A.B. 218 could undermine public institutions’ ability to address other priorities like education and climate change. Los Angeles County’s nearly $5 billion in settlements represents just the beginning, as other public entities across California face similar claims. The county’s settlement model, particularly its fraud detection mechanisms, will likely influence future agreements statewide.

California’s Legislature has the power to address these unintended consequences, but doing so requires facing complex realities. Both survivors and the public deserve thoughtful policy solutions that balance justice for victims with protection against fraud and financial sustainability for public institutions.