An act to amend Section 396 of the Penal Code, relating to price gouging.
Summary
SB 368 would amend California’s price gouging law, Penal Code Section 396, to strengthen enforcement during declared states of emergency and local emergencies. The bill keeps the existing 10% cap on emergency price increases for covered goods and services, including food, emergency supplies, medical supplies, fuel, housing, hotel/motel rates, transportation, and repair or reconstruction services, and it preserves the current emergency-time rules for housing rents and related eviction restrictions. It also retains the existing misdemeanor penalties and unfair competition remedies for violations.
The main policy change is enforcement-focused: SB 368 would require the Department of Justice and local district attorneys to establish partnerships to enforce the price gouging provisions. The bill also states that, if the Commission on State Mandates finds reimbursable state-mandated costs, the state would reimburse local agencies and school districts under existing procedures. The bill does not create a new price cap or expand the list of covered items beyond the current statute, but it does formalize a coordinated enforcement role for state and local prosecutors.
Impact
SB 368 would amend Penal Code Section 396, which governs emergency price gouging, by adding a new enforcement mandate for the Department of Justice and local district attorneys. Because that requirement increases duties for local prosecutors, the bill is identified as creating a state-mandated local program and may trigger state reimbursement obligations if the Commission on State Mandates so determines. The bill leaves the underlying substantive prohibitions largely intact, including the 10% emergency pricing limit, the 30-day and 180-day emergency periods, the housing and hotel provisions, and the misdemeanor and unfair competition penalties.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad committee support and little visible opposition. The bill passed committee 6-0 with a do pass recommendation and was later placed on the suspense file 7-0, indicating it remained viable but subject to fiscal review. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to show strong public disagreement or detailed policy criticism in the materials supplied.
Contention
The likely point of contention is not the price gouging standard itself, but the bill’s enforcement and fiscal implications. By directing DOJ and local district attorneys to form enforcement partnerships, SB 368 could increase workload for local prosecutors and potentially create reimbursable state-mandated costs, which is why it was referred through the fiscal process and placed on suspense. Support appears centered on stronger enforcement against emergency profiteering, while any concerns would likely focus on administrative burden, reimbursement, and implementation rather than the consumer-protection goals of the bill.
An act to amend Sections 16750, 16750.2, 16752, 16753, 16754, 16754.5, 16755, 16755.1, 16758, 16759, and 16760 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Section 396 of the Penal Code, relating to business.
Relates to price gouging; imposes criminal penalties for price gouging; removes language relating to the declaration of a state of emergency; increases civil penalty; authorizes a district attorney to enforce provisions.