California lawsuit bill could give residents new power against large companies

California weighs wider company lawsuits

Assembly Bill 1776 would let Californians file state antitrust claims in court when one company allegedly uses unfair tactics affecting rivals, consumer choice, market access, or prices for buyers.

The proposal would expand the Cartwright Act beyond conduct involving multiple parties, giving residents and businesses another route to challenge single-firm behavior without first proving coordination under state law.

The bill targets single-company conduct

Existing California antitrust rules usually focus on coordinated action by two or more parties, while federal law also covers certain conduct by one dominant company in market disputes.

Supporters argue that state law needs a clearer standard because federal court rulings have narrowed enforcement and left some market behavior harder to challenge through civil cases filed in California.

Plaintiffs would face proof duties

The amended bill requires plaintiffs to allege market power and prove it at trial through direct or indirect evidence before winning claims under the proposed provisions in court.

Judges would review challenged conduct within the same relevant market, so claimed competitive benefits elsewhere would not offset alleged harm in the tested sector as they decide claims.

Aguiar-Curry leads the proposal

California Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry introduced the measure on February 9, 2026, with principal coauthors from both houses after a state antitrust review shaped proposed legal changes.

The bill’s formal subject is Cartwright Act violations, and it would add new sections to the California Business and Professions Code if it becomes law during the session.

The measure cleared early votes

The California Assembly approved the measure on May 27, 2026, with 44 votes in favor, 17 opposed, and 19 lawmakers not voting before the formal Senate review process began.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on June 30, 2026, with nine votes in favor and two opposed, then sent it to further fiscal review in Sacramento.

Small businesses gained a carveout

The bill excludes an independently owned California business with 100 or fewer employees and average yearly gross receipts of $10 million or less over three years before filing.

That carveout applies only when the business has its main office in California, and its officers live in the state, matching amended language pending before senators for review.

Fun fact: California entered the Union as a free, nonslavery state by the Compromise of 1850, becoming the 31st state in 1850.

Backers cite consumer choice

Supporters frame the bill as a way to protect independent grocers, pharmacies, farms, restaurants, patients, workers, and smaller firms from concentrated market power across services and supply chains.

They argue that stronger state tools would give harmed Californians a direct path when a dominant company limits competition or controls key supplies serving local communities and businesses alike.

Little-known fact: Consumers in the United States can check a free weekly credit report from each of the three major credit bureaus.

Labor groups focus on wages

Mark Ramos, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, links the bill to grocery consolidation and harder wage bargaining for store employees in California markets.

He argues that fewer competing grocers reduce leverage for workers seeking contracts that match local living costs and support stable household budgets in places with limited store options.

Business groups warn about costs

The California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups oppose the measure, saying it would expose firms to costly claims from competitors and private lawyers in state court.

Opponents argue the proposal would add legal risk for small, midsize, and large businesses, even when disputed conduct reflects ordinary competition and routine pricing choices inside California markets.

Household costs could see effects

The California Chamber of Commerce placed Capitol-area billboards naming Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and warning that the bill would raise household costs during the 2026 legislative debate near the Capitol.

Lawmakers later advanced the measure through the Senate Judiciary Committee after the billboard push, following earlier floor approval and debate over possible legal risks raised by opposing business groups.

Umberg questions private enforcement

Senator Thomas Umberg, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised concerns about allowing residents and businesses to file these claims directly under the pending proposal in state court.

He favored limiting enforcement, at least in the first phase, to local prosecutors and the California Attorney General instead of private parties while senators consider further amendment language.

A law professor sees vagueness

Babette Boliek, a Pepperdine University law professor and former Federal Communications Commission chief economist, warned that the proposal may give judges too much discretion in future business cases.

Her concern centers on whether judges would make market decisions through unclear standards instead of measurable harm, creating uncertainty for businesses facing new claims under proposed state rules.

Want to read more about the latest news? Check out how the Montana ICE raids detained as many as 100 people in Gallatin County.

The next hearing is scheduled

Assembly Bill 1776 remains active before the Senate Appropriations Committee, with a hearing scheduled for August 3, 2026, after the summer recess for further fiscal review in Sacramento.

Further amendments remain possible, and final approval would still require passage through the Legislature before any decision by Governor Gavin Newsom on whether to sign the bill into law.

Want to stay ahead of the news? Check out how the Rhode Island education lawsuit challenges canceled English learner grants.

What stands out more, giving Californians broader power to sue large companies or the potential impact those lawsuits could have on competition and consumer choice? Share your thoughts.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Public safety concerns intensify as Zohran Mamdani’s spending plan points to a looming city cash shortfall
• Clean energy projects face faster deadlines in Massachusetts as communities get stronger local review rights
• Hochul’s plan to add nuclear power plants faces growing opposition from New Yorkers worried about local impact