1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects

New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects

What You Need to Know

  • Key takeaway #1

    If you currently use pricing software or an algorithm to set prices and other terms in California, particularly for multiple entities, this practice may soon be under closer scrutiny.

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25

This week, California Governor Newsom signed a new California pricing law that will have significant impact to companies doing business in California. The new legislation—known as AB325—will go into effect January 1, 2026 and makes it unlawful under California’s Cartwright Act to collude using a pricing algorithm and to “coerce another person to set or adopt a recommended price or commercial term” using a “common pricing algorithm.”

The new law’s prohibition on collusion through a pricing algorithm largely restates current law. But AB325 also calls for criminal and civil liability for any company that “coerces” another to adopt a price or commercial term via a common pricing algorithm. A key feature of the new law is its broad definition of what constitutes a “common pricing algorithm;” namely, “any methodology, including a computer, software, or other technology, used by two or more persons, that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set, or otherwise influence a price or commercial term.”  

Although the new law should not apply to companies using their own proprietary pricing software for their own use, companies engaged in enterprise or platform pricing may be covered, particularly without a clear definition on what constitutes coercion. Not only does the legislation not define the term, but historically courts have evaluated the existence of coercion in antitrust matters on a case-by-case basis with no single statutory definition under federal or state law.

Crowell & Moring is uniquely positioned to help you navigate the contours of this new legislation. We were heavily involved in the drafting, consideration and analysis of AB325.  Eric Enson, in particular, testified in the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees against the bill. In addition, we have analyzed possible defenses to claims under the new law, such as the Colgate Doctrine, the Supreme Court’s Copperweld ruling, and the unique legislative history that gave rise to AB325.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26

FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement....