Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Antitrust Algorithms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly moves to update antitrust law for algorithm‑enabled price fixing; industry seeks clearer definitions
Summary
AB 325 would update California antitrust law to address algorithmic coordination in pricing; supporters argued modern tools enable covert collusion, while retailers, tech and business groups warned the bill risks overbroad liability and shifts pleading and proof burdens.
Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry presented AB 325 as a measure to update the Cartwright Act and other antitrust tools for the era of pricing algorithms and third‑party software that can coordinate prices without direct human contact. She said price‑fixing via software can be harder to detect and can enable coordination at unprecedented scale; the bill would clarify that algorithmic collusion and sharing of competitively sensitive, non‑public data with third parties can give rise to an inference of illegal agreement.
Proponents included the Economic Security Project Action and the American Economic Liberties Project, who said courts already infer agreements from certain conduct and that the bill targets an identifiable enforcement gap. Supporters argued this is a bipartisan enforcement issue that can protect small businesses and consumers from anti‑competitive algorithmic practices.
Opposition included California Chamber of Commerce, California Retailers Association, TechNet and the Civil Justice Association of California. They urged tightening of definitions, raised concerns about reversing pleading burdens, and warned of chilling effects on legitimate algorithmic and pricing tools. CJAC specifically highlighted provisions raising the defendant’s burden to ‘‘clear and convincing’’ proof and potential joint and several liability.
Assemblymembers asked for tightened definitions around ‘‘pricing algorithm’’ and ‘‘non‑public competitor data’’ and for the pleading standard to align with existing Cartwright Act practice. The author said she would continue negotiations with opponents. The committee passed AB 325 as amended to the privacy and consumer protection referral.
Votes and next steps: Committee acted to advance AB 325 (transcript records motion and roll‑call) and the author said she would continue to work with opponents on definitions and pleading standards.
