An act to amend Section 8588.8 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 396 of the Penal Code, relating to price gouging.
AB 380 would expand and strengthen California’s emergency price-gouging laws. The bill extends the period during which the 10% price cap applies after a declared state or local emergency from 30 days to 60 days for most covered goods and services, hotel and motel rates, and rental-price restrictions, while keeping the 180-day period for repair and reconstruction services. It also increases the misdemeanor fine for non-natural persons such as businesses or other entities from $10,000 to $25,000.
The bill also broadens the housing-related provisions of Penal Code Section 396. It removes the current limitation that “housing” must have an initial lease term of one year or less, and it adds commercial real property to the rent-gouging and anti-eviction protections. In addition, it updates the definition of commercial real property, excludes property used primarily for transportation, freight, or storage services, and directs the Office of Emergency Services to post information for property owners about emergency rental-price rules on its website. The bill states that violations remain misdemeanors, unlawful business practices, and unfair competition, and it preserves local ordinances that are stricter than state law.
AB 380’s practical impact would be to make emergency anti-gouging rules apply for a longer period and to a broader set of rental properties, especially commercial leases. It would affect landlords, hotel and motel operators, contractors, retailers, and other businesses that sell essential goods or services during emergencies, as well as tenants in both residential and commercial settings. Because the bill expands the scope of a crime, the analysis notes that it creates a state-mandated local program, though the bill also declares that no reimbursement is required.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative history appears supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee with strong majority votes and passed the Assembly floor 49-9, suggesting broad concern about emergency profiteering and support for stronger consumer protections. At the same time, the bill was later held under submission and placed on the suspense file, indicating fiscal or policy concerns remained significant enough to slow final movement.
The main points of contention are the longer duration of the price cap, the higher penalties for businesses, and the expansion of protections to commercial real property and a wider definition of housing. Supporters likely view these changes as necessary to prevent exploitation during disasters and emergencies, while critics may be concerned about increased regulatory burden, enforcement costs, and the effect on commercial leasing and pricing flexibility during periods of market disruption.
AB 380 would amend Government Code Section 8588.8 and Penal Code Section 396 to expand California’s emergency price-gouging framework. It would lengthen the post-emergency period for most covered goods, services, hotel/motel rates, and rental-price restrictions from 30 days to 60 days, while leaving the 180-day rule for repair and reconstruction services unchanged. It would also raise the fine for violations by entities and other non-natural persons to $25,000, expand the definition of housing, and apply rent-gouging and anti-eviction rules to commercial real property, with certain exclusions and exceptions. The bill would continue to treat violations as misdemeanors and unfair business practices, and it would preserve stricter local ordinances.
The bill appears to have been generally well received in policy committees and on the Assembly floor, with multiple do-pass votes and a strong floor margin indicating broad support for tougher anti-gouging protections. However, its later status—held under submission and placed on the suspense file—suggests that fiscal concerns, implementation issues, or broader policy reservations prevented smooth final advancement. Overall, the sentiment is supportive of consumer protection, but tempered by caution about the bill’s expanded scope and enforcement consequences.
The most notable disagreements center on how far emergency price-gouging law should reach and how long it should last. The bill’s extension of the 10% cap to 60 days, its higher corporate penalty, and its expansion to commercial real property likely raise concerns among business and property-owner interests about reduced pricing flexibility during emergencies. Another point of contention is the removal of the one-year lease-term limitation for housing, which broadens coverage to more rental arrangements. Supporters are focused on preventing exploitation during disasters, while opponents or cautious legislators may worry about overbreadth, compliance burdens, and the effect on commercial leasing markets and emergency supply chains.