Bills

AB 1776: Cartwright Act: violations.

  • Session Year: 2025-2026
  • House: Assembly
  • Latest Version Date: 2026-06-22

Current Status:

In Progress

(2026-07-01: From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.)

Introduced

In Committee

First Chamber

In Committee

Second Chamber

Enacted

Version:

Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts as unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 provides that in a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 also provides that a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act is not required to allege facts tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Existing case law, In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 116, establishes a rule of reason analysis for certain claims under the Cartwright Act, which, among other things, determines whether an act was made for the purpose of avoiding competition and whether the anticompetitive effects of the agreement outweigh any procompetitive justifications.

This bill would prohibit one or more persons from acting, causing, taking, or directing measures, actions, or events that are to unreasonably restrain trade or monopolize or monopsonize in any part of trade or commerce, as specified, or in restraint of trade. provided. The bill would prohibit anticompetitive effects in one market from being offset by purported benefits in a separate market. The bill would require courts to use the analytical framework and guidance provided in In re Cipro Cases I & II. The bill would require a plaintiff bringing an action under its provisions to allege, and prove at trial, market power through either direct or indirect evidence. The bill would exempt a small business, as defined, from these provisions. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would require courts to liberally interpret Californias antitrust laws to best promote free and fair competition, as provided.

Because the bill would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the Cartwright Act, the violation of which is punishable as a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Discussed in Hearing

Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary1H
Jun 30, 2026

Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Assembly Floor23MIN
May 27, 2026

Assembly Floor

Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary1H
Apr 7, 2026

Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

View Older Hearings

News Coverage:

AB 1776: Cartwright Act: violations. | Digital Democracy