California Assembly Bill AB325

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25
• Refer: 3/10/25
• Report Pass: 3/10/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Report Pass: 4/8/25
• Refer: 4/10/25
• Report Pass: 4/24/25
• Refer: 4/28/25
• Report Pass: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/3/25
• Refer: 6/11/25
• Report Pass: 6/19/25
• Refer: 6/19/25
• Report Pass: 7/2/25
• Refer: 7/2/25
• Refer: 7/14/25
• Report Pass: 8/29/25
• Enrolled: 9/12/25
• Chaptered: 10/6/25
• Passed: 10/6/25

Caption

An act to add Sections 16729 and 16756.1 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to business regulations.

Impact

The proposed amendments to the Cartwright Act will broaden the scope of activities considered unlawful, particularly by making it illegal to use or distribute common pricing algorithms that coerce businesses into adopting specific pricing or commercial terms. Such regulations aim to combat collusion and price-fixing practices among competitors, potentially fostering a more competitive market environment in California. This change may lead to increased scrutiny of business practices that involve algorithmic pricing, adding a layer of regulation to how companies set prices in relation to their competitors.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 325, introduced by Aguiar-Curry, aims to amend the Cartwright Act by clarifying the requirements for complaints related to antitrust violations. The bill specifies that a complaint only needs to contain factual allegations that demonstrate the plausibility of a contract, combination, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce. This change simplifies the requirements for complaints, allowing claims to be filed without the need to exclude the possibility of independent action. The intent is to enhance enforcement against anti-competitive practices while addressing consumer protection more effectively.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 325 appears to be supportive among consumer advocacy groups and those concerned with fair market practices, as it aims to strengthen antitrust enforcement and protect consumers from potential price manipulation. However, there may be concerns from businesses regarding the increased regulatory burden and the implications of being held accountable for algorithmic pricing practices, which they argue could be complicated and nuanced. The measure thus has the potential to stir debate between consumer rights advocates and certain business interests.

Contention

One notable point of contention lies in the implications of criminalizing the use of common pricing algorithms, which could affect many businesses employing sophisticated pricing strategies. Critics may argue that the definitions provided in the bill could lead to unintended consequences, penalizing legitimate business strategies while aiming to target harmful practices. Furthermore, the decision not to require state reimbursement for costs incurred by local agencies due to the bill's mandate could be viewed as an evasion of state financial responsibility, leading to potential backlash from local governments.