Insights

California AB 1776 (Aguiar-Curry) — dubbed “The Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act” — was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, on September 30, 2026. The new law, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, bans single-firm monopolization, making it “unlawful for every person to monopolize or monopsonize, attempt to monopolize or monopsonize, maintain a monopoly or monopsony, or combine or conspire with another person to monopolize or monopsonize any part of trade or commerce.” Crowell & Moring served as counsel to the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) throughout the legislative process, advising on the bill’s impact and advocating for critical amendments designed to preserve competition and innovation in California.

Two federal appellate courts have now looked at analogous allegations of price fixing using AI-driven pricing software and reached opposite conclusions—creating an arguable circuit split and providing additional guidance to companies using algorithmic pricing tools.

California’s COMPETE Act (AB 1776) narrowly passed the California State Assembly by three votes on Wednesday and now moves to the California State Senate. The bill — introduced in March by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — is modeled closely on draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission in September. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but, based on recent amendments, would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to AB 1776. 

Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs.

On Thursday, the California Law Revision Commission (“CLRC”), the influential body that makes recommendations to the Legislature, took significant steps toward its goal of enacting antitrust legislation to regulate single-firm conduct under California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act. The CLRC unanimously voted to move forward with an unprecedented legislative proposal that not only outlaws single-firm “restraints of trade,” but also states that certain federal antitrust standards are not required in California state courts. As a next step, the CLRC will approve a formal recommendation to the Legislature along these lines at the CLRC’s December meeting. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to these developments because of the potentially dramatic impact this kind of law could have, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the CLRC’s recommendations.

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets.

In 2023 and 2024, several U.S. states enacted extensive “Right to Repair” laws, reflecting a growing legislative focus on ensuring consumers have access to the parts and resources needed to repair their own products without relying on the product’s original manufacturer. Most recently, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon implemented comprehensive regulations aimed at providing consumers direct access to tools, parts, and information for the repair of various electronic devices and equipment, including digital products and agricultural machinery. As the “Right to Repair” movement continues to gain significant traction across the United States, it is critical that manufacturers understand these laws and how these laws will impact their individual businesses.

Over the last year, the California Law Revision Commission (“CLRC”), the influential body that makes recommendations to the legislature, has been considering sweeping reforms to California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act. Recently, the CLRC voted to propose several changes to the Cartwright Act aimed at expanding the reach and scope of the law. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to this ongoing process because of the potentially dramatic impact such new state laws could have, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the CLRC’s recommendations.

In an early test of antitrust claims based on alleged algorithmic price fixing, a federal judge dismissed a class-action complaint alleging that hotel operators conspired to unlawfully fix the prices of hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip using pricing software. Last week, a judge in the District of Nevada dismissed allegations that Las Vegas Strip hotel operators colluded to use pricing software to fix room rates, finding that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that there was an agreement among the hotels to use the same pricing algorithm or even the same software product; which hotel operators were involved in the purported agreement; or that there was any confidential information exchanged via the software to support a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy. The court did, however, grant Plaintiffs leave to submit an amended complaint. Thus, the case (Gibson v. MGM Resorts) provides initial guideposts for how companies using pricing software might reduce potential antitrust risks.

In a closely watched "reverse payment patent settlements" case, In re: Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has joined the Third Circuit and several district courts in holding that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013) applies to non-monetary settlements. The First Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and held that Actavis applies to non-cash payments as well as cash payments.

Today a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the closely watched Motorola v. Microsoft case. The panel affirmed the Washington federal district court decision setting a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalty rate for Motorola's standard-essential patents (SEPs) for WiFi and video-coding technology. As explained in our prior alert on the April oral argument, the case raises important issues for all parties involved in SEP license negotiations. The Court held: