Skip to content

Menu

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

California Passes Broad Limits on “Common Pricing Algorithms”

By Ann O'Brien, Leo Caseria & T.J. Benedict on October 14, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Antitrust-Blog-Image-CA-660x283

On October 6, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB325, a law targeting the use and distribution of certain algorithmic pricing tools. This law is part of a larger legislative trend to try to rein in algorithmic pricing. But while other bills have focused narrowly on the rental housing market and languished in state legislatures, California’s bill targets pricing algorithms in all markets and will take effect in 2026. However, a violation of the new law requires a conspiracy or price coercion, so as a practical matter, it may not extend the range of violations already encompassed by the Cartwright Act.

What’s in the Law

  • Big Picture
    • Bans the use or distribution of a “common pricing algorithm” as part of a contract, trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce
    • Bans a person from coercing another person to set or adopt a recommended price or commercial term recommended by the common pricing algorithm for the same or similar products or services
  • Definitions
    • “Common pricing algorithm” is defined as 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
    • The law does not distinguish between whether an algorithm relies on public rather than private or confidential data
    • “Person” includes corporations, firms, partnerships and associations
  • Private Right of Action
    • The law amends the Cartwright Act, so the Cartwright Act’s private right of action applies

What’s Not Covered

  • The law does not appear to target proprietary, internally developed algorithms. In other words, the law does not reach when a corporation’s algorithm recommends prices solely for that corporation.

Takeaways

  • The use or distribution of an algorithm does not violate the law in the absence of a conspiracy or coercion regarding price.
  • The law targets algorithms that use “competitor data” without defining that term, meaning that the law likely covers both public and nonpublic data.
  • Two or more businesses cannot use the same pricing algorithm if the algorithm uses “competitor data.”
  • Algorithms that only use internal, non-competitor data appear to be safe as long as they are used in-house only.
  • In-house algorithms that use competitor data appear permissible as long as the algorithms stay “in-house”—a pricing algorithm that relies on competitor data cannot be “used by two or more persons.”
  • Besides setting prices, the law also covers when algorithms influence any “commercial term,” for example the duration of a lease or other contract.

Photo of Ann O'Brien Ann O'Brien

Ann O’Brien is a partner and co-leader of the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group. She also leads the firm’s Criminal Antitrust and Cartels team. Ann is based in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about Ann O'BrienEmail
Photo of Leo Caseria Leo Caseria

Leo Caseria is Co-Chair of both the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group and Governmental Practice and a partner in the Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles offices.

Read more about Leo CaseriaEmail
Photo of T.J. Benedict T.J. Benedict

T.J. Benedict is an associate in the Governmental Practice in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about T.J. BenedictEmail
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Antitrust Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 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