An act to add Sections 16730, 16731, and 16732 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to business regulations.
AB 1776 would expand and clarify California’s Cartwright Act antitrust provisions by adding new statutory sections that define unlawful restraints of trade, monopolization, and monopsonization more broadly under state law. The bill states that the purpose of the Cartwright Act is to promote free and fair competition, including competition for workers, and directs courts to interpret California antitrust law liberally to maximize deterrence of antitrust violations. It also emphasizes that federal antitrust law is only instructive, not controlling, when California courts interpret state antitrust claims.
Substantively, the bill would make it unlawful for one or more persons to take actions that restrain trade or monopolize or monopsonize any part of trade or commerce. It would require courts to evaluate anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications within the same relevant market, and it would bar defendants from offsetting harm in one market with benefits in another. The bill would also require plaintiffs to plead and prove market power through direct or indirect evidence, while exempting qualifying small businesses from its coverage. In addition, it lists several conditions that may be evidence of a violation, but says none of them is required to establish liability, including certain refusal-to-deal, predatory-pricing, and multisided-platform theories.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to broaden the reach of the Cartwright Act and potentially increase the number and scope of antitrust claims brought under California law. Because the measure expands conduct that can be treated as unlawful and the Cartwright Act is criminally enforceable, the bill is described as creating a state-mandated local program, though it also declares that no reimbursement is required. The practical effect would likely be greater exposure for businesses accused of anticompetitive conduct, especially larger firms and platform businesses, while preserving an exemption for small businesses meeting the bill’s size and location criteria.
Overall sentiment in the available legislative history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill received a majority vote in committee and was reported out with 9 ayes and 3 noes on April 7, 2026, and later received a 9-2 do pass recommendation with re-referral to Appropriations. That voting pattern suggests support for stronger antitrust enforcement, but also some concern about the bill’s breadth or fiscal/legal implications.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s expansion of liability standards and its departure from federal antitrust frameworks. Critics may be concerned that the bill lowers barriers to proving Cartwright Act violations, limits the use of federal case law, and broadens liability for refusal-to-deal, predatory pricing, and platform conduct. Supporters appear to view these changes as necessary to better protect competition, workers, and consumers, and to ensure California law remains more protective than federal antitrust law.
AB 1776 would add new sections to the Business and Professions Code and materially expand the Cartwright Act’s scope by codifying broader state antitrust standards, including monopolization and monopsonization theories, market-specific balancing rules, and a liberal-construction directive for courts. It would affect businesses accused of anticompetitive conduct, especially larger firms and multisided platforms, while exempting qualifying small businesses. Because the bill expands conduct that can trigger criminal enforcement under the Cartwright Act, it could increase enforcement exposure and litigation risk under California law.
The available vote history suggests the bill has meaningful support in committee, with a majority backing it and advancing it to Appropriations, but not unanimous agreement. The committee votes indicate a generally pro-enforcement sentiment toward strengthening California antitrust law, alongside some reservations reflected in the no votes. No transcript discussion was provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate beyond the vote outcomes.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broadening of antitrust liability, its treatment of federal antitrust law as only persuasive, and its restrictions on how defendants may justify challenged conduct. Opponents may argue that the bill creates uncertainty for businesses by lowering or reshaping proof requirements and by expanding liability for refusal-to-deal, predatory pricing, and platform conduct. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on stronger competition policy, worker mobility, and preventing firms from escaping liability by pointing to benefits in separate markets or by relying on narrower federal standards.