CA SB 295
deadCalifornia Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 295 pass?
No. CA SB 295 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2025-09-13). Latest recorded action (2025-09-13): Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.
What is CA SB 295 about?
Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various responsibilities on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts that are unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement through civil actions. This bill would enact the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, to prohibit a person, as described, from distributing or making recommendations based on the use of a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, as defined, under specified circumstances, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm processes competitor data, as defined. This bill would also prohibit a person from using the recommendation of a pricing algorithm that processes competitor data, as specified, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm uses or incorporates competitor data. The bill would establish an affirmative defense to liability under this prohibition for a person who demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that they exercised reasonable due diligence before using the recommendations of a pricing algorithm, as specified. The bill would specify when the use, recommendation, or distribution of a pricing algorithm constitutes separate violations. The bill would declare that these provisions do not apply if all of the competitor data processed by the pricing algorithm was collected more than one year before the use, recommendation, or distribution of the pricing algorithm. The bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for violation of the above-described provisions to seek restitution, punitive damages, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, and other appropriate relief, as provided. The bill would declare that its provisions shall not impair or limit the applicability of antitrust laws, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the development, distribution, output, or use of a credit score or other computational tool either subject to specified law or provided by a commercial credit reporting agency, as specified.
Who sponsors CA SB 295?
Hurtado is the primary sponsor of CA SB 295, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various responsibilities on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts that are unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement through civil actions. This bill would enact the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, to prohibit a person, as described, from distributing or making recommendations based on the use of a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, as defined, under specified circumstances, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm processes competitor data, as defined. This bill would also prohibit a person from using the recommendation of a pricing algorithm that processes competitor data, as specified, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm uses or incorporates competitor data. The bill would establish an affirmative defense to liability under this prohibition for a person who demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that they exercised reasonable due diligence before using the recommendations of a pricing algorithm, as specified. The bill would specify when the use, recommendation, or distribution of a pricing algorithm constitutes separate violations. The bill would declare that these provisions do not apply if all of the competitor data processed by the pricing algorithm was collected more than one year before the use, recommendation, or distribution of the pricing algorithm. The bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for violation of the above-described provisions to seek restitution, punitive damages, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, and other appropriate relief, as provided. The bill would declare that its provisions shall not impair or limit the applicability of antitrust laws, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the development, distribution, output, or use of a credit score or other computational tool either subject to specified law or provided by a commercial credit reporting agency, as specified.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-06
- Latest action
- 2025-09-13 — Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Hurtadoauthor
- Cortesecoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-06
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2025-02-07
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 9.
2025-02-19
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-04-03
Set for hearing April 22.
2025-04-10
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-11
Set for hearing April 29 in PUB. S. pending receipt.
2025-04-17
April 22 hearing postponed by committee.
2025-04-22
Set for hearing April 29.
2025-05-01
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 11. Noes 2. Page 939.) (April 29).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-05-05
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-05-06
Withdrawn from committee.
withdrawal
2025-05-06
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2025-05-09
Set for hearing May 19.
2025-05-19
May 19 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-05-20
Set for hearing May 23.
2025-05-23
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-23
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1194.) (May 23).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-06-03
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 1470.) Ordered to the Assembly.
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-06-04
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
reading-1
2025-06-09
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-06-26
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-06-27
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-02
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 3.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-14
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-17
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 4.) (July 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-08-20
August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-08-29
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (August 29).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-09-02
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-09-03
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-09-09
Joint Rule 61(a)(13) suspended. (Ayes 60. Noes 20. Page 3128.)
2025-09-13
Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.
2025-09-13
Joint Rule 61(a)(14) and 51(a)(4) suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 20. Page 3413.)
2025-09-13
Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 13. Noes 24. Page 3448.)
failure,reading-1,reading-3
Versions
- 02/06/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-06Compare
- 04/10/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-04-10Compare
- 05/05/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-05-05Compare
- 06/26/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-06-26Compare
- 06/27/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-06-27Compare
- 07/14/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-07-14Compare
- 09/02/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-09-02Compare
- SB295Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Public Safety]
2025-04-29 · pass · 11-2
Member-level votes (13)
- Arreguín: yes
- Allen: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Laird: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Stern: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Valladares: no
- Niello: no
Placed on suspense file
2025-05-19 · pass · 5-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Cabaldon: other
- Dahle: other
Do pass
2025-05-23 · pass · 5-1
Member-level votes (7)
- Caballero: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Seyarto: no
- Dahle: other
3rd Reading SB295 Hurtado et al.
2025-06-03 · pass · 29-10
Member-level votes (40)
- Gonzalez: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Becker: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Stern: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Allen: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Limón: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Valladares: no
- Choi: no
- Seyarto: no
- Niello: no
- Strickland: no
- Ochoa Bogh: no
- Alvarado-Gil: no
- Grove: no
- Dahle: no
- Jones: no
- Reyes: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Privacy and Consumer Protection]
2025-07-01 · pass · 9-3
Member-level votes (12)
- Connolly: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Papan: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Macedo: no
- Dixon: no
- Sanchez: no
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-07-16 · pass · 9-4
Member-level votes (15)
- Bryan: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Ward: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ortega: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Macedo: no
- Patterson: no
- DeMaio: no
- Dixon: no
- Irwin: other
- Petrie-Norris: other
Do pass as amended.
2025-08-29 · pass · 10-4
Member-level votes (15)
- Elhawary: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Solache: yes
- Sanchez: no
- Ta: no
- Tangipa: no
- Dixon: no
- Pacheco: other
SB 295 Hurtado Senate Third Reading By Bauer-Kahan
2025-09-13 · fail · 13-24
Member-level votes (80)
- Wicks: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Haney: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Johnson: no
- Dixon: no
- Rogers: no
- Ward: no
- Ransom: no
- Soria: no
- Connolly: no
- Castillo: no
- Alanis: no
- Wallis: no
- Patterson: no
- Ta: no
- Hoover: no
- Gallagher: no
- Macedo: no
- Ellis: no
- Davies: no
- DeMaio: no
- Hadwick: no
- Tangipa: no
- Lackey: no
- Sanchez: no
- Chen: no
- Flora: no
- Ahrens: other
- Mark González: other
- Quirk-Silva: other
- Gipson: other
- Addis: other
- Hart: other
- Fong: other
- Calderon: other
- Wilson: other
- Carrillo: other
- Bains: other
- Michelle Rodriguez: other
- Berman: other
- Valencia: other
- Arambula: other
- Schultz: other
- Bennett: other
- Papan: other
- Jeff Gonzalez: other
- Pacheco: other
- Boerner: other
- Alvarez: other
- Lee: other
- Stefani: other
- Caloza: other
- Sharp-Collins: other
- Nguyen: other
- Ortega: other
- Solache: other
- Blanca Rubio: other
- Jackson: other
- Petrie-Norris: other
- Harabedian: other
- Gabriel: other
- Zbur: other
- McKinnor: other
- Pellerin: other
- Muratsuchi: other
- Krell: other
- Irwin: other
- Ramos: other
- Patel: other
- Garcia: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 295. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.