PAGA Class Actions September 2026 Update: What Changed, Why It Matters, and What to Watch Next

September 2026 finds California's Private Attorneys General Act — the 2004 law that lets a single employee sue on behalf of the state and coworkers for Labor Code violations — in the middle of its biggest procedural overhaul ever. The two changes that matter most right now: the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) revised its first-ever proposed PAGA regulations in August and closed a final comment period on August 18, and the California Supreme Court is expected to decide Leeper v.

Shipt, the "headless PAGA" case, during its 2026 term. Neither event has landed yet, which is exactly why this window matters. The rules governing who can file PAGA notices, how settlements get approved, and whether a PAGA case can be split into arbitration are all about to be rewritten — and filing volume is running at record pace while everyone waits.

What the LWDA changed in August
How settlement review would work under the new rules
Is PAGA filing actually slowing down?
Leeper v. Shipt: the "headless PAGA" question
What happens after arbitration is itself unsettled
What to watch between now and 2027
Frequently Asked Questions

What the LWDA changed in August

On August 3, 2026, the LWDA released modified text of its proposed PAGA regulations and opened a 15-day comment period that ran through August 18, according to Jackson Lewis's California Workplace Law Blog. That followed the original comment period, which closed March 23, and a public hearing on April 9. These are the first administrative rules in PAGA's 22-year history; the rulemaking began February 6, 2026 to implement the 2024 reform statutes, AB 2288 and SB 92. The August revisions changed who gets flagged as a heavy filer.

Per Seyfarth Shaw's Wage & Hour Litigation Blog, the "high-frequency filer" threshold for an individual attorney dropped from 200 to 100 PAGA notices filed in the preceding 12 months, while the 200-notice threshold for law firms stayed put. The agency also swapped the proposed "vexatious filer" label for a "non-compliant filer" standard. For workers, the individual-attorney threshold is the one to notice. High-volume PAGA practices are built around a small number of attorneys filing at scale, and a 100-notice line captures far more of them than 200 did.

How settlement review would work under the new rules

The proposed regulations rework how PAGA settlements get approved, and this is the piece that directly touches anyone waiting on a payout. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman reports that the rules would give the LWDA at least a 45-day period to review proposed settlements, require additional supporting materials before approval, and mandate notice to other pending PAGA plaintiffs whose claims overlap. Two practical consequences follow.

First, settlements will take longer to finalize — a built-in 45-day agency window sits on top of the court approval process that already exists. Second, the overlapping-claims notice means a worker whose own PAGA notice covers the same violations at the same employer should hear about a competing settlement before it is approved, rather than discovering their claims were released in someone else's deal. None of this applies yet. Until the Office of Administrative Law approves final text, settlements move under the current statutory framework.

Is PAGA filing actually slowing down?

No. The 2024 reforms were sold partly as a brake on filing volume, and the numbers say the brake has not engaged.

According to Zaller Law Group's mid-year analysis, 2025 set a record with 10,098 PAGA notices filed with the LWDA, and 2026 filings are averaging roughly 849 notices per month at mid-year — a pace that would exceed 10,000 again and potentially set a new record. That volume is the backdrop for everything else in this update. It explains why the LWDA tightened its filer thresholds, and it means that whatever the Supreme Court and the regulators decide, they will be deciding rules for a docket that is growing, not shrinking.

Leeper v. Shipt: the "headless PAGA" question

The biggest pending question is Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (S289305). The California Supreme Court granted review on its own motion on April 16, 2025, and per Fisher Phillips, will decide whether every PAGA action necessarily includes an arbitrable individual claim — or whether a plaintiff can bring a purely representative "headless" action with no individual component to arbitrate. A decision is expected during the 2026 term.

The stakes are wide because arbitration agreements are nearly universal in California employment. Impact Fund's amicus commentary puts arbitration clauses in roughly 80% of California employment contracts. If the court rules that every PAGA suit contains an individual claim, employers can compel that piece to arbitration and pause the representative case while it runs — a delay of a year or more for most workers in the case. The headless strategy exists precisely to avoid that pause: file only the representative claim, leave nothing for the arbitrator, and keep the case in court. Leeper decides whether that route stays open.

What happens after arbitration is itself unsettled

Even where arbitration goes forward, courts disagree about what the result does to the representative case. Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment held that an employee who loses individual PAGA arbitration is precluded from litigating the representative action — the loss ends the whole case.

Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Superior Court went the other way on a related question, holding that an arbitrator's finding of no injury does not by itself strip a plaintiff's PAGA standing to pursue state penalties, as summarized by Ervin Cohen & Jessup. For a worker whose case gets split, this split in authority is the real risk: which line of cases the trial court follows can determine whether an adverse arbitration award kills the representative claims of everyone else at the company.

What to watch between now and 2027

The regulations are still proposals. Nothing filed with the Office of Administrative Law is final, so current obligations remain the 2024 statutory framework — the personal-standing requirement, the cure process, and the reasonable-steps penalty caps — as Buchalter's analysis notes. Two events will reshape PAGA practice into 2027, and readers with pending or potential claims should track both: If you have a PAGA notice on file or are part of a pending representative action, the settlement-notice provision is the concrete change to remember: once the rules are final, overlapping plaintiffs must be told before a competing settlement resolving their claims can be approved.

Final PAGA regulations clearing the Office of Administrative Law, which start the 45-day settlement review clock and the filer-threshold reporting.
The Leeper v. Shipt decision, expected in the 2026 term, which settles whether headless PAGA actions survive.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do the new PAGA regulations apply to my case right now?

No. They are proposed rules; until the Office of Administrative Law approves final text, cases proceed under the 2024 statutory framework, per Buchalter's analysis.

What is a "headless" PAGA action?

A suit bringing only the representative claim on behalf of other employees, with no individual claim that could be sent to arbitration. Leeper v. Shipt will decide whether that structure is allowed.

Will the reforms mean fewer PAGA cases get filed?

The data so far says no — 2025 set a record at 10,098 notices, and 2026 is pacing to match or exceed it at roughly 849 notices per month, per Zaller Law Group.