AB 1776 CA Passed One Chamber
A state bill is a proposed law in a state legislature — separate from the U.S. Congress. Learn more →
Summary
California Assembly Bill 1776 expands California's Cartwright Act antitrust law to prohibit persons from unreasonably restraining trade or monopolizing commerce. The bill prohibits anticompetitive effects in one market from being offset by benefits in another market and requires courts to apply specific analytical frameworks when evaluating antitrust claims. Plaintiffs must prove market power through direct or indirect evidence, and small businesses are exempt from the provisions. Courts are required to liberally interpret California's antitrust laws to promote free and fair competition.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill (from the OpenStates abstract — no full text available yet) — neutral, and may be imperfect.
Official abstract
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 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 California's 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.
Sponsor (1)
- Aguiar-Curry Democratic · author
12 coauthors / cosponsors
- Mark González Democratic · principal coauthor
- Hurtado Democratic · principal coauthor
- Bains Democratic · coauthor
- Bonta Democratic · coauthor
- Connolly Democratic · coauthor
- Elhawary Democratic · coauthor
- Lee Democratic · coauthor
- Ortega Democratic · coauthor
- Rogers Democratic · coauthor
- Schiavo Democratic · coauthor
- Cortese Democratic · coauthor
- Padilla Democratic · coauthor
Action history (19)
- Feb 9, 2026 Read first time. To print. · lower
- Feb 10, 2026 From printer. May be heard in committee March 12. · lower
- Feb 23, 2026 Referred to Com. on JUD. · lower
- Mar 23, 2026 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended. · lower
- Mar 24, 2026 Re-referred to Com. on JUD. · lower
- Apr 8, 2026 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 3.) (April 7). · lower
- Apr 9, 2026 Read second time and amended. · lower
- Apr 13, 2026 Re-referred to Com. on APPR. · lower
- Apr 29, 2026 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. · lower
- May 14, 2026 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 14). · lower
- May 18, 2026 Read second time. Ordered to third reading. · lower
- May 18, 2026 Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5141.) · lower
- May 27, 2026 Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 44. Noes 17.) · lower
- May 28, 2026 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. · upper
- Jun 10, 2026 Referred to Com. on JUD. · upper
- Jun 16, 2026 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD. · upper
- Jun 22, 2026 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD. · upper
- Jul 1, 2026 From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. · upper
- Jul 22, 2026 In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. · upper
Full text
The full text hasn’t been imported yet. CivicGate fetches it from the state legislature’s published version documents — check now.
Comments
Data from OpenStates. View on OpenStates →
Comments