The most fought-over bill next month?

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Welcome back to Capitol Confidential! Happy Friday. 

Here’s what to know this morning before your mind wanders too far and you start thinking about how we’re heading into our final July weekend of the year. Or maybe that’s just me.

As always, reach out with any questions, thoughts and interesting tidbits at [email protected], and on X, @KathrynPlmr.

AB1776, the COMPETE Act, would significantly expand the Cartwright Act, a landmark regulation that governs California’s antitrust enforcement.

The bill, authored by Assembly Member Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters (Yolo County), passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last month with a 9-2 vote — and one abstention — after more than an hour of intense debate. 

The bill would change the parameters of antitrust liability, making it possible to go after single-firm business engaging in anticompetitive practices. The existing regulations require two or more businesses be involved for the antitrust regulations to be enforced. 

The change was recommended by the California Law Revision Commission, an independent state agency, after undertaking a three-year review of the state’s antitrust laws. 

Aguiar-Curry said the two-firm requirement in the Cartwright Act is a “major loophole,” arguing that one firm can engage in as much harmful anticompetitive behavior as two companies. 

“AB1776 is about making sure that when a dominant company abuses its power to shut out competition and harm small businesses, competitors, consumers, and workers, California has the tools to respond,” Aguiar-Curry told the committee. “This bill protects free and fair competition and helps ensure that California's marketplace works for everyone.”

In the era of massive market concentration, debates and legal friction over antitrust and monopolistic behavior abound, from media mergers like Paramount and Warner Bros., to the ticket market and the recent landmark antitrust ruling against Live Nation. 

AB1776’s approach to the issue has been met, unsurprisingly, with aggressive pushback from business interests, led by the California Chamber of Commerce and more than two dozen business and industry-specific advocacy groups. 

Chief among the Chamber’s complaints is that the bill tackles a problem it says has not materialized, arguing the bill and its backers are unable to provide specific instances in which single-firm anticompetitive activity has created harm. The Chamber has called the COMPETE Act a “misguided” effort that would have negative economic consequences on businesses.

Among lawmakers, Democratic support for the Assembly majority leader’s marquee bill has not been entirely smooth, either. The bill has gone through a handful of revisions, and in last month’s Senate Judiciary Committee, Chair Thomas Umberg, D-Santa Ana, applauded Aguiar-Curry’s openness to revising the bill but said he still could not throw his support behind it. 

“We want to make sure that we are not stifling competition by virtue of the threat of lawsuits,” Umberg said. Other Democrats voiced similar concerns, including Sens. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, and Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento. 

Ashby, who voted to advance the bill, zeroed in on what has become a flashpoint provision, the “private right to action,” which could allow an individual to challenge a company over alleged anticompetitive behavior. That, some legislators worried, could lead to a glut of litigation. 

Aguiar-Curry said during the hearing she is committed to working with legislators and the attorney general on the enforcement provisions of the bill, including avoiding "frivolous" lawsuits, leaving the door open for further modifications. The bill has already been through a few rounds of amendments, and is slated to head to appropriations next.

In advance of the return to session next month, the California Chamber of Commerce this week announced a multimillion-dollar effort to oppose the legislation, replete with a 30-second ad warning AB1776 would drive up costs for consumers and create new obstacles for California businesses.

After four ICE-related deaths in the last week, including two people fatally shot by federal agents in Maine and Texas, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, is urging the Legislature to pass his so-called “No Kings” bill next month. 

The bill, SB747, would close a legal loophole that makes it difficult to sue federal officers, like Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, over allegations they have violated a person’s constitutional rights. 

While current law allows for local law enforcement to be held legally accountable for constitutional rights violations, the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in the Egbert v. Boule gave federal agents effective legal immunity from prosecution. Though the Supreme Court this week announced it will take up a related case that tackles the same original legal mechanism governing whether individuals can sue federal officers for constitutional violations, SB747’s fate will be decided well before the justices return from their own summer recess. 

Wiener conceded the bill could become a target for the Trump administration, as it continues to expand its unprecedented immigration crackdown and test the legal limits of federal immigration actions, but said he believes in the strength of the legal arguments behind the bill. If passed, it could be among the most expansive state laws giving people the ability to sue federal agents for rights violations. This can include unlawful searches, violations of freedom of speech, racial profiling or wrongful death.

“We're not creating any new responsibilities for federal agents, this only applies if they violate the U.S. Constitution,” Wiener said. “They are already bound by the Constitution, so all we’re saying is, ‘If you violate the U.S. Constitution, then you are accountable.’”

The bill has so far received significant Democratic support, and in a statement to the Chronicle this week Wiener said he’s “cautiously optimistic” it will make it to the governor’s desk. 

Those in opposition to the bill primarily include organizations that represent California law enforcement, including peace officers and sheriffs. 

Its co-sponsors include immigrant rights and pro-democracy groups, including Protect Democracy United and the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, and it is supported by ACLU California. 

Seen around town: More than 100 SEIU Local 1000 union members flooded downtown Sacramento sidewalks on Wednesday, lambasting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return to in-person work order. 

The largest union of state employees is in current union contract negotiations, with telework options a key hang-up. In the Legislature, the union is a co-sponsor of AB1729, authored by Assembly Member Alex Lee, D-San Jose, requires every state agency to streamline its telecommuting plans by reporting cost savings, reevaluating its policies every decade.

ICYMI 

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.