Updated on September 4, 2026

Serving a Summons and Complaint By Social Media?  A New Possibility as of January 1, 2026

If you’ve ever struggled to track down an evasive defendant to serve a summons and complaint, California just gave you a new tool in your arsenal. Effective January 1, 2026, an amendment to California Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30, enacted through Senate Bill 85 (Stats. 2025, ch. 403) — expressly authorizes courts to order service of process by “electronic mail or other electronic technology.” That broad language opens the door, for the first time in California statutory law, to serving a defendant through social media.

What Changed?

For decades, California’s rules of civil procedure have recognized five basic methods for serving a summons and complaint: (1) personal delivery (CCP § 415.10); (2) substitute service at the defendant’s residence or workplace (CCP § 415.20); (3) service by mail with acknowledgment of receipt (CCP § 415.30); (4) certified or registered mail for persons outside the state (CCP § 415.40); and (5) service by publication (CCP § 415.50).

 

 

Section 413.30 has long served as a catch-all provision, giving courts discretion to authorize alternative service methods when no other statutory method is available — or when those methods have failed. Under the prior version of the statute, however, the language was sparse. It simply allowed a court to “direct that the summons be served in a manner which is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served.” There was no mention of electronic means.

The amended § 413.30 now explicitly provides that the court may order service “in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party to be served, including by electronic mail or other electronic technology.” That last phrase — “other electronic technology” — is intentionally broad. It encompasses email, of course, but also social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and X (formerly Twitter), as well as messaging applications and other digital communication channels.

Don’t Get Too Excited , A Court Order Is Still Required

Before you fire off a complaint via Instagram DM, there’s an important caveat: this is not a self-executing right. You cannot simply decide on your own to serve a defendant electronically. The amended statute still requires you to:

1. File a motion with the court requesting authorization for alternative service.
2. Demonstrate reasonable diligence by setting forth facts detailing every attempt to serve the defendant through each of the traditional statutory methods and explaining why each method was unsuccessful at every known address or location.
3. Obtain a court order specifically directing the electronic service method you propose.

The amendment actually tightens the diligence requirement compared to prior law. Whereas courts previously applied a judicially developed “reasonable diligence” standard, the statute now explicitly mandates that the plaintiff “set forth facts detailing all attempts to serve the defendant by each of the methods prescribed by statute, including facts demonstrating why each method was unsuccessful at every address or location where the defendant is likely to be found.”

What Will Courts Want to See?

Although it’s still early days for this amended statute, existing case law on alternative service gives us a solid roadmap for what courts will expect in a motion for service by social media:

• Exhaustion of traditional methods. You will need to show that personal service, substitute service, mail service, and (where applicable) service by publication were all attempted or are clearly futile. Multiple attempts at different times and locations strengthens your showing.
• A verified connection between the defendant and the account. Courts will want evidence that the social media account actually belongs to the defendant and that the defendant actively uses it. A dormant account or one that cannot be reliably linked to the defendant will not satisfy the due process standard.
• A reasonable likelihood of actual notice. The constitutional floor remains unchanged: whatever method you propose, it must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.” (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).) An active social media account that the defendant checks regularly is far more likely to satisfy this standard than, say, a profile that hasn’t been updated in years.
• Thorough investigative efforts. Courts have looked favorably on plaintiffs who conducted business and property record searches, social media platform searches, voter register reviews, and directory searches as part of their overall diligence.

A Note on Government Entities

The amendment includes an express carve-out: § 413.30 “does not apply in an action against a governmental entity or an agent or employee of the governmental entity who has been sued in an official or individual capacity.” If you are suing a government defendant, this avenue is not available to you.

Why This Matters! Especially in Quiet Title Actions

At Schorr Law, we deal with this challenge regularly. A significant part of our real estate litigation practice involves quiet title actions — lawsuits filed to establish clear ownership of property and eliminate competing claims. Under California’s quiet title statutes, a plaintiff must name and serve every person or entity that may have an interest in the property, including holders of old liens, unknown claimants, and distant relatives of prior owners who may have inherited an interest they don’t even know about.

Anyone who has handled a quiet title case knows how difficult this can be. The liens we’re trying to clear may be decades old, recorded by individuals or companies that have long since moved, dissolved, or passed away. The heirs and successors who may hold residual interests are often scattered across the country — or the world — and may have no idea they have any connection to the property. Traditional service methods frequently hit dead ends: addresses are outdated, businesses no longer exist, and personal delivery is impossible when you can’t locate the person.

This is exactly the scenario where the amended § 413.30 can make a real difference. When we’ve exhausted personal service, substitute service, mail, and even publication — and we can demonstrate that a claimant or their heir maintains an active social media presence — the new statutory language gives us a clear basis to ask the court to authorize service through that digital channel. For quiet title practitioners, this could meaningfully reduce the delays and costs that come with chasing down hard-to-find parties.

Of course, practitioners should still approach these motions thoughtfully. The stronger your evidence that the defendant actually uses the platform and is likely to see the communication, the better your chances of obtaining the court order — and the more durable your service will be if the defendant later challenges it.

The Bottom Line

California’s amendment to CCP § 413.30 is a meaningful development for civil litigators — and for real estate attorneys like us at Schorr Law who regularly navigate the complexities of quiet title actions. It does not create a free-for-all — you still need court approval and a strong showing of diligence. But for the first time, California’s statutory framework expressly contemplates that a summons and complaint can reach a defendant through the digital channels that dominate modern life. Whether you’re clearing an old lien, tracking down unknown claimants, or trying to locate a distant relative who inherited a fractional property interest, this amendment may give you the tool you need to move your case forward.

If you have questions about serving process in a quiet title action or any other real estate litigation matter, contact Schorr Law to discuss your options.

Frequently Asked Questions About Social Media Service of Process in California

Can you serve a summons and complaint through social media in California?

California’s amended Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30 allows a court to order alternative service that is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice, including service by electronic mail or other electronic technology. This broad language may provide a basis for court-authorized service through social media in appropriate circumstances.

Can I serve a defendant through Instagram or Facebook?

Potentially, but court authorization is required. A plaintiff cannot simply decide to serve a summons and complaint through Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, or another social media platform. The plaintiff must request an order authorizing the proposed method of alternative service.

What is California Code of Civil Procedure § 413.30?

CCP § 413.30 is California’s alternative-service provision. It allows courts to direct that a summons be served in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice when the circumstances justify an alternative method of service.

What must I show to get an order for social media service?

A plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting traditional methods of service and provide facts showing why those methods were unsuccessful. The plaintiff should also present evidence connecting the defendant to the specific social media account and showing that the defendant is likely to receive actual notice through that account.

Do I have to try traditional service before requesting social media service?

A strong motion should document the plaintiff’s efforts to use the traditional statutory methods of service and explain why those efforts were unsuccessful. The amended statute specifically requires facts detailing attempts to serve the defendant through the methods prescribed by statute and why those methods failed.

What evidence can establish that a social media account belongs to the defendant?

Evidence may include identifying information associated with the account, photographs, employment or business information, posts, connections to known associates, and other information linking the account to the defendant. The goal is to establish a reliable connection between the defendant and the account.

Does social media service satisfy due process?

The proposed method must still be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice under the circumstances. An active account regularly used by the defendant may provide a stronger basis for alternative service than an inactive or unverifiable account.

Can social media service be used against a government entity?

No. The amended § 413.30 contains an express exception for actions against governmental entities and certain government agents or employees.

Why could social media service be useful in a quiet title action?

Quiet title actions can involve defendants who are difficult to locate, including unknown claimants, former lienholders, heirs, and successors with outdated or unknown addresses. When traditional service efforts have been exhausted and a claimant can be reliably located through an active social media account, court-authorized electronic service may provide another potential avenue for moving the case forward.

About the Author

Zachary D. Schorr is a California real estate litigation attorney and the founding attorney of Schorr Law. He represents clients in specific performance actions, partition lawsuits, quiet title disputes, and complex real estate litigation throughout Southern California.

📍 Schorr Law
Call Us: (866) 999-2990
📧 zschorr@schorr-law.com

Full Bio | Contact | Instagram | View All Articles

Call Us

Phone: (866) 787-9384
Email: info@schorr-law.com
Address: 1901 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 615, Los Angeles, California 90067
Text: (833) 249-1634