Assembly committee advances bill to clarify price‑fixing law for algorithmic tools

AB 3 25 by Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry advanced out of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on a party‑line vote after more than two hours of testimony and debate. The bill would update California antitrust law to make clearer when the use of the same pricing tool by competing firms can be treated as evidence of collusion.

Supporters said AB 3 25 is a targeted response to recent investigations that uncovered suspected algorithmic coordination in industries from food to housing. "The competition between rivals benefits us all," said Terry Oley, director of Economic Security California Action, testifying as a cosponsor. He and other proponents argued that existing law is struggling to keep pace with software that can coordinate price decisions across otherwise independent companies.

The bill’s author framed AB 3 25 as an effort to close a gap in enforcement. Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry said courts and prosecutors often must rely on circumstantial "plus factors" to infer an agreement, and that the bill would codify one such factor: the distribution and use of a common algorithm to set prices when that tool processes the same data and performs the same function for multiple competitors. Lee Heffner of the American Economic Liberties Project, an antitrust attorney who testified in support, pointed to investigations and litigation across sectors as evidence the problem is widespread.

Opponents — including the California Apartment Association, the Civil Justice Association of California, the California Chamber of Commerce and trade groups representing hospitals and retailers — said the bill is written too broadly and risks outlawing legitimate business practices. Whitney Properties (California Apartment Association) warned that many landlords and small businesses use the same commercially available pricing software to set rates based on public market data and their own business goals, and that AB 3 25 could ban lawful uses. The apartment association witness said the allegation in some high‑profile cases was that products incorporated nonpublic competitor data, and urged narrower language focused on misuse of private competitive data.

Committee members asked technical questions about how courts would detect an illicit agreement, the distinction between public and nonpublic data, and the potential impacts on small businesses. Several members urged the author to continue negotiations with opponents and stakeholders. The committee adopted amendments offered during the hearing; the bill was moved out of committee to the Appropriations Committee.

Supporters emphasized enforcement problems and pointed to investigative examples — such as a widely reported case involving large frozen potato producers — as the basis for change. Opponents repeatedly asked for clearer, narrowed drafting to avoid chilling ordinary competitive tools and to protect lawful use of public market data.

AB 3 25 now goes to Appropriations; legislative staff and the author said they will continue negotiating language on data definitions and standards for evidentiary showing before the bill is considered further.