AB-325
Consumer Protection

Cartwright Act: violations.

Enrolled
CA
2025-2026 Regular Session
0
0
Track

Key Takeaways

  • Prohibits businesses from using shared pricing algorithms that coordinate prices or commercial terms among competitors.
  • Makes it illegal to coerce others into adopting prices recommended by common pricing algorithms.
  • Lowers the evidence threshold needed to file antitrust complaints under the Cartwright Act.
  • Expands state antitrust laws to address automated price coordination in digital markets.

Summary

Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry's antitrust legislation targets algorithmic price coordination by prohibiting businesses from using or distributing common pricing algorithms that restrain trade. The measure establishes two distinct violations: using pricing algorithms as part of anticompetitive agreements and coercing others to adopt algorithm-recommended prices or terms for similar products and services in California.

The bill defines common pricing algorithms as any methodology using competitor data to recommend, align, or influence prices and commercial terms like service levels, availability, and output quantities. These provisions supplement existing antitrust law while specifically addressing modern technological tools that could enable coordinated pricing. The legislation also modifies pleading requirements for Cartwright Act violations, allowing complaints to proceed by demonstrating plausible evidence of anticompetitive agreements rather than having to exclude the possibility of independent action.

By expanding the scope of prohibited activities under California's antitrust framework, the measure creates new criminal violations when businesses deploy pricing algorithms in ways that restrain trade. While the bill maintains current enforcement mechanisms, it excludes end consumers from liability and explicitly preserves other antitrust protections. Local agencies may incur enforcement costs, though the measure specifies these expenses do not require state reimbursement under constitutional provisions regarding criminal law changes.

Key Dates

Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 325 Aguiar-Curry Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Vote on Senate Floor
Senate Floor
Vote on Senate Floor
Assembly 3rd Reading AB325 Aguiar-Curry et al. By Umberg
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Do pass as amended
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Placed on suspense file
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 325 Aguiar-Curry Assembly Third Reading
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Do pass
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]
Introduced
Assembly Floor
Introduced
Read first time. To print.

Contacts

Profile
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Chris WardD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
0 of 2 row(s) selected.
Page 1 of 1
Select All Legislators
Profile
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Chris WardD
Assemblymember
Bill Author

Get Involved

Act Now!

Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.

Introduced By

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
California State Assembly Member
Co-Author
Chris Ward
Chris WardD
California State Assembly Member
70% progression
Bill has passed both houses in identical form and is being prepared for the Governor (9/12/2025)

Latest Voting History

September 12, 2025
PASS
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AyesNoesNVRTotalResult
5418880PASS

Key Takeaways

  • Prohibits businesses from using shared pricing algorithms that coordinate prices or commercial terms among competitors.
  • Makes it illegal to coerce others into adopting prices recommended by common pricing algorithms.
  • Lowers the evidence threshold needed to file antitrust complaints under the Cartwright Act.
  • Expands state antitrust laws to address automated price coordination in digital markets.

Get Involved

Act Now!

Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.

Introduced By

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
California State Assembly Member
Co-Author
Chris Ward
Chris WardD
California State Assembly Member

Summary

Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry's antitrust legislation targets algorithmic price coordination by prohibiting businesses from using or distributing common pricing algorithms that restrain trade. The measure establishes two distinct violations: using pricing algorithms as part of anticompetitive agreements and coercing others to adopt algorithm-recommended prices or terms for similar products and services in California.

The bill defines common pricing algorithms as any methodology using competitor data to recommend, align, or influence prices and commercial terms like service levels, availability, and output quantities. These provisions supplement existing antitrust law while specifically addressing modern technological tools that could enable coordinated pricing. The legislation also modifies pleading requirements for Cartwright Act violations, allowing complaints to proceed by demonstrating plausible evidence of anticompetitive agreements rather than having to exclude the possibility of independent action.

By expanding the scope of prohibited activities under California's antitrust framework, the measure creates new criminal violations when businesses deploy pricing algorithms in ways that restrain trade. While the bill maintains current enforcement mechanisms, it excludes end consumers from liability and explicitly preserves other antitrust protections. Local agencies may incur enforcement costs, though the measure specifies these expenses do not require state reimbursement under constitutional provisions regarding criminal law changes.

70% progression
Bill has passed both houses in identical form and is being prepared for the Governor (9/12/2025)

Key Dates

Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 325 Aguiar-Curry Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Vote on Senate Floor
Senate Floor
Vote on Senate Floor
Assembly 3rd Reading AB325 Aguiar-Curry et al. By Umberg
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Do pass as amended
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Appropriations Hearing
Placed on suspense file
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Senate Committee
Senate Judiciary Hearing
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Vote on Assembly Floor
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AB 325 Aguiar-Curry Assembly Third Reading
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Appropriations Hearing
Do pass
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Hearing
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Assembly Committee
Assembly Judiciary Hearing
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]
Introduced
Assembly Floor
Introduced
Read first time. To print.

Latest Voting History

September 12, 2025
PASS
Assembly Floor
Vote on Assembly Floor
AyesNoesNVRTotalResult
5418880PASS

Contacts

Profile
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
Profile
Chris WardD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Not Contacted
Not Contacted
0 of 2 row(s) selected.
Page 1 of 1
Select All Legislators
Profile
Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD
Assemblymember
Bill Author
Profile
Chris WardD
Assemblymember
Bill Author