Last week, the California Law Revision Commission approved recommended legislative language to significantly amend the state’s antitrust law and create a new Single Firm Conduct policy.
The California Chamber of Commerce has opposed the change throughout the Commission’s deliberations.
In a statement released shortly after the Commission acted on January 30, CalChamber emphasized that California businesses “take seriously their responsibility to operate and grow under the rules of a fair marketplace.”
CalChamber also noted that businesses expect government officials to identify problems clearly before proposing purported solutions such as the kind of sweeping changes being suggested to the state’s antitrust law.
“The California Law Revision Commission has failed to meet that expectation,” CalChamber asserted.
No Study
The Commission, directed by the Legislature in 2022 to review the state’s antitrust laws, never produced a study to support the claim that California consumers and businesses are suffering from reduced competition because of a lack of state-specific rules governing the conduct of a single company in selling its products or services.
Instead, CalChamber noted, the Commission proposed a law with “poorly defined terms, lacking standardized tests for wrongdoing, and relying on a presumption of illegal activity when it comes to a number of business practices that are widely considered typical and benefit consumers by offering better services and prices.”
‘Chilling Effects’
CalChamber warned that the Commission’s proposal would have substantial “chilling effects,” deliver a “devastating blow to California’s innovation economy” and result in a sharp increase in litigation and consumer prices.
“It would be the antithesis of affordability,” CalChamber stated.
“A rushed, go-it-alone approach for our state threatens to create a fragmented national business landscape. California would be less attractive to the entrepreneurs whose success is essential to our future prosperity.”
CalChamber concluded: “The Commission rushed its decision by issuing a final proposal with less than 72 hours’ notice, a disappointing lack of collaboration with the businesses that would have to ultimately comply.”
