RANDAZZO 002 - Structural Coercion and the Bane Act: When California Higher-Ed Institutions Risk Liability by Compelling Students into §632 Violations Under Threat of Academic Penalty

Randazzo 001 showed that class assignments labeled “non‑generalizable research” (and thus outside IRB review) do not eliminate liability exposure under California Penal Code §632 when students record confidential communications and upload artifacts to third‑party platforms, where incomplete disclosure renders consent structurally defective. This second paper demonstrates that when state actors in public higher education (administrators or faculty acting under color of state law) require or pressure students to engage in these practices and tie compliance to grade or course‑credit consequences, they expose themselves and their institutions to liability under the Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code §52.1) for interference—by threat, intimidation, or coercion—with rights secured by California law, namely the §632 two‑party consent right. We construct a formal logic model of coercion‑via‑academic‑penalty and prove that: (1) conditioning educational benefits on conduct that foreseeably violates §632 constitutes actionable interference; (2) the requisite specific intent is satisfied where officials are on notice of §632 risk (including post‑complaint non‑remediation); and (3) even attempted interference (threats that deter protected refusal) is independently cognizable under §52.1. We conclude with compliance architecture for courses and institutional governance. Keywords: Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code §52.1, California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) §632, state action, coercion, learning management systems (Canvas), vendor redisclosure, IRB carveout, informed consent, formal methods