Sacramento, CA — The California Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) announced yesterday the launch of a “multi-million dollar effort” in opposition to California Assembly Bill 1776 (Aguiar-Curry), also known as the COMPETE Act. A much needed amendment to California’s core antitrust law — the Cartwright Act — the bill aims to close a century-old gap in the law that prevents enforcement against anticompetitive conduct by a single firm, or “illegal monopolization.”

In response to the factually inaccurate “sustained awareness campaign” by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Economic Liberties Project issued the following statement in response:

“I think Californians are smarter than the Chamber of Commerce gives them credit for,” said Lee Hepner, Senior Legal Counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. “Look around, the impacts of consolidation and unchecked monopoly power are everywhere. Pharmacies are shutting down, gas prices are skyrocketing, newsrooms are disappearing, people can’t get insurance for their homes, friends and family members are being laid off. This is a two-tiered economy where the largest businesses are funneling wealth to the top and everyday people get pinched.”

“The Chamber of Commerce cannot say they represent small businesses while running a statewide campaign to entrench the power of a few massive corporations,” Hepner continued. “This bill was carefully crafted to actually ensure small businesses are not a target of enforcement. The irony is not lost on us that lobbyists for the most dominant corporations in the state are trying to win by deception rather than competing fairly on the merits.”

The COMPETE Act is the result of a three-year bipartisan consensus-driven study by the California Law Revision Commission, which was open to the public and elicited more than 140 public comment letters. The study was initiated by a resolution of the California legislature, recognizing that California was one of just five states without a single-firm anti-monopoly law.

Since introduction of the COMPETE Act earlier this year, the bill has been amended to exempt all small businesses from enforcement, to remove specific reference to disfavored interpretations of federal antitrust law, and to more closely mirror the “illegal monopolization” language of the federal Sherman Act. Federal interpretations of antitrust law would be instructive, but not binding, on California law. The California Supreme Court has long held that the intent of the state’s existing antitrust laws is “maximizing deterrence” of anticompetitive conduct.

The Chamber of Commerce’s campaign trots out a series of inaccurate facts about the bill, specifically fearmongering around its harms to small businesses in the state. A FACT-CHECK of the Chamber’s numerous inaccurate statements is below.

FACT-CHECKING the Chamber’s Multi-Million Dollar Misinformation Campaign

MYTH: The Chamber claims the COMPETE Act “would expose businesses of all sizes to a wave of frivolous lawsuits.”

FACT: The COMPETE Act explicitly exempts all businesses with under 100 employees and under $10 million in annual gross receipts from the prohibition – over 98% of businesses in the state, according to data from the California Employment Development Department.

FACT: There will never be a wave of frivolous lawsuits because anti-monopoly lawsuits cost tens of millions of dollars to bring, are highly fact-specific, and are only enforceable when large corporations engage in anticompetitive conduct.

MYTH: The Chamber claims that supporters of the COMPETE Act “have never identified [a problem] after some six months of public hearings.”

FACT: Over 75% of industries have undergone significant concentration in the last quarter century. (See Biden White House Executive Order 14036 – Promoting Competition in the American Economy (July 9, 2021); citing Grulon, Larkin, Michaely, “Are U.S. Industries Becoming More Concentrated?”, Review of Finance (2018)). That study found that increased concentration is associated with higher profit margins, but no significant increase in business efficiency.

FACT: The harms of reduced competition are well understood and include higher prices, reduced output, lower wages, and fewer opportunities for new market entry. Concentrated corporate power also contributes to broader societal and political harms, as illustrated by the Chamber’s misinformation campaign.

FACT: The COMPETE Act was the result of a three-year study by the neutral California Law Revision Commission, which chronicled concentrated corporate power in the state and the lack of a law prohibiting illegal monopolies. A working group of antitrust and economics professors and legal practitioners – including corporate defense lawyers – characterized the lack of a prohibition against illegal monopolies as “a glaring deficiency in the Cartwright Act.”

FACT: California is home to 5 of the 10 largest companies in the nation, four of which have either been declared an illegal monopoly or are facing pending federal antitrust lawsuits. The fifth is facing a formal investigation into potential antitrust violations. Meanwhile, the gap between top and bottom incomes in the state has increased by 57% since 1980. (See Toman, Parayes-Montoya, “Income Inequality in California,” Public Policy Institute of California (Apr. 2026)). California ranks 9th among the states with the worst income inequality in the nation.

MYTH: The Chamber claims that the COMPETE Act “would raise prices, kill customer discounts and price matching programs, and create substantial compliance burdens that could bankrupt small business owners and wipe out jobs in communities across the state.”

FACT: The COMPETE Act would incentivize more price competition, not less, including in the form of competitive discounts and loyalty rewards programs. By contrast, corporate concentration eliminates the pressure between competing businesses to attract consumers with reduced prices and higher quality products.

FACT: The bill exempts all small businesses – over 98% of businesses in the state, according to CA EDD data – from the prohibition against illegal monopolization. As to the largest 2% of businesses in the state (including 5 of the top 10 largest companies in the nation) enforcement will still require proof that a business possesses market power, and that it engaged in anticompetitive conduct to harm rival businesses and maintain that power.

MYTH: The Chamber claims that the COMPETE Act would “threaten $1 trillion of California’s gross domestic product and 1.6 million jobs in the first decade.”

FACT: The study cited by the Chamber of Commerce was conducted by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which receives funding from Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta, all of which are facing, or have recently faced, federal lawsuits alleging illegal monopolization.

FACT: The economic impact analysis cited by the Chamber of Commerce relies on numerous legal errors, including that the bill would be enforced against small businesses without market power, even though the bill explicitly requires evidence of market power and exempts all small businesses from enforcement.

FACT: The economic impact analysis cited by the Chamber of Commerce is based on the unrelated New York 21st Century Antitrust Act, which proposed an “abuse of dominance” standard that was rejected by California lawmakers. The analysis falsely characterizes the COMPETE Act as a more aggressive bill than the NY bill, even though the COMPETE Act is, by contrast, a near word-for-word mirror of federal antitrust law. Its methodology and conclusions have no economic merit and amount to loose conjecture.

MYTH: The Chamber claims that “twenty-five professors at California universities have urged the Legislature to reject the bill.”

FACT: Of the 25 professors, fewer than half are professors of antitrust or economics. At least six have served as paid litigation consultants to Big Tech companies. At least three have received funding from Google for their scholarship. In total, at least 12 of the signatories to the opposition letter have close financial and organizational ties to Big Tech.

FACT: A separate letter in support of the bill was signed by 20 antitrust and economics scholars representing the top universities in the country, none of whom have received any compensation from any interested party.

The support letter directly addresses the misplaced arguments of the Chamber’s opposition letter, including “misplaced” claims that the COMPETE Act includes new or unpredictable legal standards.

The full text of that support letter can be viewed here.

Learn more about Economic Liberties here.