![\"David](\"https:\/\/prospect.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-DAVID-DAYEN_CIRCLE-80x80.png\")
by\u00a0David Dayen<\/a><\/strong> June 29, 2026 (Prospect.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"California](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/prospect.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Dayen-CA-antitrust-062926.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1\")
A bill to update the antitrust laws in the nation\u2019s most populous state faces a critical legislative hearing this week. At a time when California is among the states being relied upon as a substitute for proper antitrust enforcement, which is moribund at the federal level thanks to Trump administration corruption, advocates say the state must have a full suite of tools to succeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Monied interests are working diligently to stop the bill, but it gained important momentum late last week when a key senator signed on. The office of state Sen. Ben Allen, who is running for statewide office to become California\u2019s insurance commissioner, told the Prospect<\/em> that \u201cthe Senator is very likely going to be supporting the bill.\u201d Allen was one of a handful of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats whose position on the bill was uncertain as of last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More from David Dayen<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Allen is roommates in Sacramento with Sen. Henry Stern; they represent nearby districts in Southern California and often vote in concert. Stern has also been considered a swing vote on the legislation. His office did not respond to a request from the Prospect<\/em> for clarification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are 13 members<\/a> on the committee, 11 Democrats and 2 Republicans. If Allen and Stern support the bill, it likely has enough votes to get out of the committee. Sen. Scott Wiener, who is running for Congress from San Francisco, previously told the Prospect<\/em> he would support it, and five other Democrats are expected yes votes, with three others undecided, including the chair, Sen. Tom Umberg. As chair, however, Umberg could influence several committee members with his recommendation, so the outcome remains uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neither Umberg\u2019s office nor the offices of Akilah Weber Pierson and Angelique Ashby, who are also considered swing votes, responded to requests for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n THE BILL, KNOWN AS THE COMPETE ACT<\/strong> (AB 1776<\/a>), will get heard in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. It would fix a defect in the state\u2019s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act: namely, that it does not cover single-firm conduct. Currently, the law can only be applied to coordinated conduct by multiple firms to monopolize an industry. But the new language affirms that \u201cit is unlawful for one or more persons\u201d to \u201cunreasonably restrain trade\u201d or \u201cmonopolize or monopsonize, attempt to monopolize or monopsonize, maintain a monopoly or monopsony, or combine or conspire with another person to monopolize or monopsonize any part of trade or commerce.\u201d Given that the quintessential mono<\/em>poly is a single firm, it\u2019s a logical update.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry introduced the update<\/a> in February, which tracks closely the recommendations<\/a> of the California Law Revision Commission, which assists the legislature with ideas for updating legislation in the state. The CLRC recommendation to add a single-firm conduct provision came after years of study and testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Restrictions on single-firm conduct would allow individual would-be monopolists to be sued under state law. That would include Silicon Valley\u2013based tech firms like Google, Apple, and Meta, all of which have faced monopolization cases at the federal level; Google has been found guilty of monopolization twice. Real estate firms like algorithmic price coordinator RealPage, grocers with local footprints like Kroger and Albertsons (which tried to merge in 2024), home insurance companies colluding to deny fire coverage in the state, and Hollywood studios that could be scrutinized over tying together distribution and production would be at greater risk from a souped-up Cartwright Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The COMPETE Act passed the State Assembly easily in May, but the Senate Judiciary Committee has been seen as a location for corporate interests to make a stand. The committee is considered more moderate than the state Senate as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The California Chamber of Commerce released a letter to Umberg last week with 106 co-signers, lambasting the COMPETE Act as unnecessary, claiming it would sow confusion, chill lawful conduct, and \u201cincrease litigation and impose significant cost on consumers as well as all businesses operating in California.\u201d CalChamber is calling AB 1776 a \u201ccost driver<\/a>\u201d bill, a new category they have been using to group together legislation in an age of inflation. Historically, bills designated \u201cjob killers\u201d by CalChamber have died in the state legislature; the cost driver epithet is a similar play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An analysis of the co-signers to the CalChamber letter tells a somewhat different story than their argument that it puts all businesses at risk, however. Eleven of the co-signers are trade associations for the tech industry, fourteen represent agriculture and food retail, nine represent real estate interests, seven represent finance and insurance, five represent hospitality and entertainment, and another nine represent health care, life sciences, transportation, and manufacturing. These are among the most concentrated industries in the economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The talking points in the opposition letter reference activities unique to those industries. It cites \u201creward programs offered by hotels and airlines,\u201d \u201cdiscounts provided by pharmaceutical companies,\u201d pharmaceutical and technology patents, and movie studio distribution practices. This aligns with the pharmaceutical industry\u2019s stated claims<\/a> that new treatments and clinical trials will have to be scrapped if the bill goes through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe technology, real estate, health care, and airline sectors represented in the opposition coalition have the most direct and prominent recent antitrust exposure relevant to what AB 1776 would expand liability for,\u201d according to Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel with the American Economic Liberties Project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Close to four dozen local chambers of commerce and business councils also signed on in opposition. But those groups are made up of small-business memberships who are often in combat with larger firms attempting to monopolize their markets. In addition, numerous small-business groups (including the National Small Business Advocacy Council, American Independent Business Alliance, and Small Business Majority) and local business councils (the state\u2019s Black Chamber of Commerce and local chambers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Stanislaus, Sierra, Sonoma, San Gabriel Valley, Richmond, and the High Desert) are in support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prospect<\/em> asked CalChamber how it made sure its position reflected the views of its membership. Spokesperson John Myers replied that members \u201ccan join policy committees that review issues such as this one\u201d and \u201care consulted in a variety of ways\u201d during the legislative session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n BIG-MONEY LOBBYISTS HAVE ALREADY<\/strong> added amendments into AB 1776, including exemptions for small businesses and requirements to provide evidence of market power in any liability cases. Predictably, CalChamber has said that the amendments only add uncertainty and continue to put all businesses in litigation risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Umberg has endorsed other antitrust bills in the past, including the law that passed last year banning algorithmic price-fixing. He did object to the BASED Act, a separate antitrust bill brought by Sen. Wiener this year that would have prevented self-preferencing by technology platforms. But BASED didn\u2019t have the imprimatur of the state Law Review Commission, which is rarely rejected by the legislature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill has emerged just as California\u2019s attorney general Rob Bonta has led a coalition of state enforcers using federal antitrust laws to fight consolidation on multiple fronts. This has become necessary because the federal government has committed ritual suicide on its antitrust enforcement agencies. Just last week, the new acting head of the Justice Department Antitrust Division, Stanley Woodward, told staffers that he preferred not to go to trial<\/a> on any case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state coalition has picked up the slack. It successfully prosecuted Ticketmaster, which was found guilty of monopolization in federal court. It has blocked a television station merger between conglomerates Nexstar and Tegna. And Bonta is expected to lead a challenge to the merger between entertainment studios Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. (One wrinkle: the private-sector lawyer that the states hired to win the Ticketmaster case, Jeffrey Kessler, has been hired by Paramount.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bonta has not spoken out about the COMPETE Act, though advocates and other officials in California have been working to obtain his support, sources tell the Prospect<\/em>. Bonta\u2019s office did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the COMPETE Act makes it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, it would likely get to the governor\u2019s desk. Gavin Newsom has fallen in line with CalChamber and other business groups in the past, and he\u2019s currently fighting a billionaire tax proposal<\/a> whose top opponent is Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who would likely have a problem with a stronger state antitrust law as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Newsom, who is expected to run for president in 2028, has been making several moves in the antitrust space. He asked for increased funding for enforcement amid the more prominent role of state attorneys general. And this week, former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director Rohit Chopra begins work in Sacramento as a Newsom appointee, running a new consumer protection agency<\/a> in the state. Perhaps political ambition can work for the good of Californians this time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I hope that you found this article interesting and thought-provoking. The reason we\u2019re able to publish stories like this \u2014 free of programmatic ads and never behind a paywall \u2014 is because readers like you step up to support our work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Prospect <\/em>doesn’t answer to advertisers or billionaire owners. We answer to you and to our commitment to pursuing the truth, wherever that leads us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Independent, reader-supported journalism is critical at a time when the free press is under assault. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If you believe this kind of reporting should exist and remain free to read, we hope you’ll consider chipping in. Every contribution, however modest, makes a real difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Donate Now<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n David Dayen<\/strong> April 23, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n June 2, 2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n March 16, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n ddayen@prospect.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n David Dayen is the executive editor of The American Prospect. He is the author of Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power and Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street\u2019s Great Foreclosure Fraud. He co-hosts the podcast Organized Money with Matt Stoller. He can be reached on Signal at ddayen.90. More by David Dayen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Advocates have gained momentum to beef up the state\u2019s primary antitrust law, but the largest companies in the nation are trying to stop it. by\u00a0David Dayen June 29, 2026 (Prospect.org) A bill to update the antitrust laws in the nation\u2019s most populous state faces a critical legislative hearing this week…. Continue reading Before you go.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"David](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/prospect.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/cropped-DAVID-DAYEN_CIRCLE.png?resize=780%2C780&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Executive Editor<\/p>\n\n\n\nRelated<\/em><\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Meta Is a Monopoly Even if TikTok Can Compete<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Organized Money: Why Farmers and Filmmakers Both Face Monopoly<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Organized Money: The Live Nation Case<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
David Dayen<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n