Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

States’ antitrust enforcement is alive and well: California enacts broad premerger notification requirement

By Jay L. Levine on March 3, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Downtown Sacramento California Capital Dome Building City Skyline

Table of Contents

  • Key requirements
  • Fees and penalties
  • Implications for companies
  • Enforcement posture
  • What companies should do now

California has enacted a sweeping new premerger notification law that will significantly expand the state’s visibility into M&A activity. On Feb. 10, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Act (SB 25), making California the third state—after Washington and Colorado—to adopt a broad, cross‑industry premerger filing regime. The law becomes effective Jan. 1, 2027. Previously, notifications were required only of healthcare, retail grocery and retail drug transactions.

Link to Key requirements Key requirements

SB 25 is modeled on the Uniform Law Commission’s draft legislation and ties its applicability to federal Hart‑Scott‑Rodino (HSR) filings. A company must submit its HSR filing to California within one business day if either of the following thresholds is met:

  • The company’s principal place of business is in California; or
  • The company or its subsidiaries have more than $26.8 million in annual California net sales of the goods or services involved in the transaction.

Further guidance on the filing mechanism and threshold calculations is expected later in 2026.

Link to Fees and penalties Fees and penalties

California diverges from other states by imposing:

  • Filing fee: up to $1,000
  • Civil penalties: up to $25,000 per day for non‑compliance

Despite these requirements, there is no mandatory waiting period before closing.

Link to Implications for companies Implications for companies

SB 25 is expected to have a broader impact than similar laws in other states due to California’s economic scale. Companies with California operations or sales above the $26.8 million threshold should anticipate:

  • Earlier and more frequent state‑level scrutiny of transactions
  • Automatic access by the California Attorney General (AG) to key HSR information
  • Potential multistate review, as the law permits sharing filings with Washington, Colorado and any future states that adopt the premerger law

Link to Enforcement posture Enforcement posture

California officials have signaled that the intent is to receive filings concurrently with federal agencies. Nonetheless, SB 25 aligns with a broader trend of increasing state activism in merger review, particularly where state interests or consumers may be affected.

Link to What companies should do now What companies should do now

  • Assess California nexus early in deal planning
  • Incorporate SB 25 filings into transaction timelines beginning January 2027
  • Evaluate potential for increased state AG engagement, especially for deals involving significant California sales
  • Monitor forthcoming guidance on filing procedures and thresholds

If you have any questions, please contact Jay at 202-778-3021 or jlevine@porterwright.com

Photo of Jay L. Levine Jay L. Levine

Jay Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. Litigation Department. His practice is concentrated in complex litigation and counseling and he is co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust and Consumer Protection Practice Group. He is also the managing editor of the firm’s…

Jay Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. Litigation Department. His practice is concentrated in complex litigation and counseling and he is co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust and Consumer Protection Practice Group. He is also the managing editor of the firm’s innovative Antitrust Law Source blog and host of its podcast, as well editor of the firm’s Food And Agriculture Quarterly.

Read more about Jay L. LevineEmailJay L.'s Linkedin ProfileJay L.'s Twitter Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Antitrust Law Source
  • Organization:
    Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo