CaliforniaCalifornia Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.
What it does
Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various responsibilities on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts that are unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement through civil actions.
More detail
This bill would enact the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, to prohibit a person, as described, from distributing or making recommendations based on the use of a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, as defined, under specified circumstances, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm processes competitor data, as defined.
This bill would also prohibit a person from using the recommendation of a pricing algorithm that processes competitor data, as specified, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm uses or incorporates competitor data. The bill would establish an affirmative defense to liability under this prohibition for a person who demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that they exercised reasonable due diligence before using the recommendations of a pricing algorithm, as specified. The bill would specify when the use, recommendation, or distribution of a pricing algorithm constitutes separate violations. The bill would declare that these provisions do not apply if all of the competitor data processed by the pricing algorithm was collected more than one year before the use, recommendation, or distribution of the pricing algorithm. The bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void.
This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for violation of the above-described provisions to seek restitution, punitive damages, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, and other appropriate relief, as provided.
The bill would declare that its provisions shall not impair or limit the applicability of antitrust laws, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the development, distribution, output, or use of a credit score or other computational tool either subject to specified law or provided by a commercial credit reporting agency, as specified.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2025
- Sep 13Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.Latest
- Vote recorded SB 295 Hurtado Senate Third Reading By Bauer-Kahan. Result: fail.Lower
- Sep 13Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 13. Noes 24. Page 3448.)Major
- Sep 13Joint Rule 61(a)(14) and 51(a)(4) suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 20. Page 3413.)
- Sep 9Joint Rule 61(a)(13) suspended. (Ayes 60. Noes 20. Page 3128.)
- Sep 3Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Sep 2Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Aug 29From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (August 29).Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 20August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Jul 17From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 4.) (July 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- Jul 16
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jul 14From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.Major
- Jul 2From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 3.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.Minor
- Jul 1
- Vote recorded Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 27From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Major
- Jun 26From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Major
- Jun 9Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.Minor
- Jun 4In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.Minor
- Jun 3Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 1470.) Ordered to the Assembly.Passed Senate
- Vote recorded 3rd Reading SB295 Hurtado et al. Result: pass.Upper
- May 23Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Vote recorded Do pass. Result: pass.Upper
- May 23From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1194.) (May 23).Minor
- May 20Set for hearing May 23.
- May 19May 19 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- May 9Set for hearing May 19.
- May 6Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Minor
- May 6Withdrawn from committee.Major
- May 5Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.Major
- May 1From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 11. Noes 2. Page 939.) (April 29).Major
- Apr 29
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Public Safety]. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 22Set for hearing April 29.
- Apr 17April 22 hearing postponed by committee.
- Apr 11Set for hearing April 29 in PUB. S. pending receipt.
- Apr 10From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.Major
- Apr 3Set for hearing April 22.
- Feb 19Referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.Minor
- Feb 7From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 9.
- Feb 6Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.Introduced
- Sep 13Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.Latest