The bill, authored by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Davis Democrat, would make it easier to sue companies in state court over alleged anti-competitive behavior. Under the measure, individuals and businesses who believe they’ve been harmed by a company’s efforts to squash competition could bring their own legal action, rather than relying solely on state or federal regulators to step in. Smaller firms — those with 100 or fewer employees and average annual gross receipts of at least $10 million over the past three years — would be shielded from the law.

Supporters argue the change is overdue. Aguiar-Curry and other backers point to federal antitrust enforcement, which they say has grown increasingly passive even as entire sectors of the American economy have consolidated into the hands of a few dominant players. More than three-quarters of U.S. industries have seen this kind of consolidation since the late 1990s, according to the assemblymember.

“When companies gain that much power and abuse it, that means higher prices, less choice, fewer opportunities for job creators to start small businesses and suppressed wages for working families,” Aguiar-Curry told colleagues during a June hearing.

But the proposal has run into resistance from business groups, who warn it would expose companies to a wave of costly litigation and give what they call predatory law firms a new avenue to pressure businesses into settlements. Several moderate Democrats have echoed those concerns, saying the bill could make California an even tougher place to operate a business.

“We want to make sure that we are not stifling competition by virtue of the threat of lawsuits,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat.

Umberg was among lawmakers who declined to cast a vote when the bill came before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. He joined 16 Assembly Democrats who similarly withheld support during an earlier floor vote in May. The measure now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where its fate remains uncertain as lawmakers continue to weigh consumer protection against the concerns of the business community.

For Inland Empire and Southern California business owners watching the debate, the outcome could carry real consequences — either a stronger avenue for challenging monopolistic practices that squeeze out competitors, or a new source of legal exposure that adds to the cost of doing business in the state.

In other Sacramento news, the University of California is pushing back on reports suggesting it has abandoned plans to reconsider the SAT for undergraduate admissions. UC officials say a fresh evaluation of the test’s role remains on the table, even as the original timeline has shifted. The clarification comes amid growing pressure from some faculty members who want the test reinstated, arguing it offers a valuable, consistent benchmark for incoming students — particularly those pursuing degrees in science, technology, engineering and math. The UC Board of Regents eliminated the SAT requirement in 2020 amid concerns it disadvantaged low-income applicants, and only the regents have the authority to bring it back.

Meanwhile, the California Supreme Court is preparing to hear a series of cases challenging the use of undercover jailhouse informants, a controversial law enforcement technique known as a Perkins operation. Critics say the tactic — in which agents posing as fellow inmates, often larger and more experienced than their targets, attempt to elicit confessions — is coercive and falls disproportionately on Black and Latino defendants. A CalMatters investigation found that among cases now before the state’s high court, defendants are split among Hispanic, Black and white individuals, but a broader review of murder cases from 2015 to 2023 found Black defendants were targeted for these stings more than four times as often as white defendants.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Weighs Giving Consumers More Power to Sue Large Corporations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.