California Algorithmic Pricing Act (AB 325)
Effective date
Penalty
Existing Cartwright Act remedies: treble damages, injunctive relief, criminal penalties up to $1,000,000 for corporations.
Obligations mapped
Tracked
Overview
Prohibits use of common pricing algorithms as part of anticompetitive agreements. Covers any methodology including software used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to recommend, set, or influence prices. Lowers pleading standard for all Cartwright Act violations. Targets algorithmic collusion such as rental pricing algorithms like RealPage. Significant for any company using shared pricing software.
This is an AI-specific state law.
See if this regulation applies to your company with the free exposure scan.
Who this applies to
This regulation applies to the following roles:
- Developers of covered AI systems
- Deployers and users of covered AI systems
- Organizations operating in California
This regulation applies to both companies that build AI products and companies that use AI tools from other vendors.
AB 325
AI categories covered
- Algorithmic pricing
Specific AI use cases:
- Dynamic and algorithmic pricing
What this requires you to do
Detailed obligation packs are not yet mapped for this entry in XIRA. Obligation areas from the catalog are listed below.
What this requires you to do
Prohibited practices
Avoid conduct the statute bans, including harmful manipulation and intentional discrimination.
Record-keeping required
Maintain records. Keep documentation of your AI systems, decisions made, and compliance activities.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.
Enforcement and penalties
Existing Cartwright Act remedies: treble damages, injunctive relief, criminal penalties up to $1,000,000 for corporations.
Private right of action: plaintiffs may bring direct claims in addition to government enforcement.
Penalty amounts are based on statutory text and may be subject to adjustment, judicial interpretation, or enforcement discretion.
Legislative history
effective
Takes effect
Related regulations
- UpcomingAI-Specific
California AI Transparency Act (SB 942)
The California AI Transparency Act requires creators of large generative AI systems to provide free AI detection tools, embed provenance metadata in AI-generated content, and offer visible disclosure options. Large platforms must detect and preserve provenance data.
Effective
- UpcomingPrivacy ADM
CCPA/CPRA Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations
California's ADMT regulations require businesses using automated decisionmaking technology for significant decisions (employment, finance, housing, education, healthcare) to provide pre-use notices, offer opt-out rights, respond to access requests, and conduct risk assessments with annual CPPA filing under penalty of perjury.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Transparency in Frontier AI Act (SB 53)
Requires developers of frontier AI models trained above the statutory compute threshold (10^26 FLOPs) to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services, and implement whistleblower protections. Also reaches large frontier developers with annual revenues over $500 million. Replaces the vetoed SB 1047 with a narrower transparency approach. Currently applies to approximately five to eight companies worldwide given the FLOP threshold. Includes a federal deference provision: compliance with comparable federal standards, including the EU AI Act, is accepted where the statute allows.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California AI Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013)
Requires developers of generative AI systems or services available to Californians to publish high-level documentation on training data, including sources, types, and curation. Applies retroactively to systems released on or after January 1, 2022. No trade secret exemption. Internal development or material modification of third-party GenAI can be in scope. xAI challenged the law in federal court; on March 4, 2026 the court denied a preliminary injunction, so AB 2013 remains in full effect while litigation continues. Major providers published required documentation by January 1, 2026.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare Provider Generative AI Disclosure (AB 3030)
Requires healthcare providers to disclose when generative AI is used in patient interactions and to document that use in the patient record. Focuses on licensed providers and clinical settings. AB 489 (2025) later extended parallel transparency duties to developers and deployers of healthcare AI, not only providers.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare AI Deceptive Terms Act (AB 489)
AB 3030 (2024) requires healthcare providers to disclose generative AI use to patients and in records. AB 489 (2025) extends similar duties to technology developers and deployers whose healthcare AI communicates with patients or presents as credentialed care. It bars false claims of professional licenses or credentials and requires clear disclosures in healthcare settings.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California FEHA regulations on automated decision systems (Civil Rights Council)
California Civil Rights Council regulations apply FEHA's anti-discrimination framework to automated decision systems (ADS) in employment. Defines ADS broadly to include AI, ML, and algorithmic tools. Makes anti-bias testing evidence relevant to discrimination claims and defenses. Requires reasonable accommodation when ADS disadvantages disabled or religious individuals. Prohibits pre-offer medical inquiries via ADS. Employers with 5+ employees are covered. 4-year record retention required.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Companion Chatbots Act (SB 243)
California's Companion Chatbot Act may apply to operators of AI chatbots designed for ongoing social interaction. Where applicable, operators may need to disclose the AI nature of the chatbot, maintain safety protocols for self-harm and suicide content, provide crisis referrals, and implement special protections for minors including break reminders and content restrictions. Operators may need to publish safety protocols and file annual reports with the Office of Suicide Prevention starting July 2027.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replicas of Deceased Performers Act (AB 1836)
Restricts commercial uses of realistic AI-generated replicas of deceased performers' voices or likenesses in audiovisual works and sound recordings without consent from the personality's estate or other rightsholder.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replica Contract Protections (AB 2602)
Makes contract terms unenforceable when they allow digital replicas of a performer without the performer giving specific, informed consent. Two paths to enforceable consent: independent legal counsel review or union agreement. Companion to AB 1836.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California AI Definition Act (AB 2885)
Standardizes the legal definition of artificial intelligence across all California law. Defines AI as an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and can infer from input how to generate outputs that influence physical or virtual environments. Mirrors the OECD AI definition.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Non-Consensual Deepfake Pornography (SB 926)
Criminalizes creation and distribution of realistic deepfake intimate images without consent, if the creator or distributor knew or should have known it would cause serious emotional distress. Applies to AI-generated content.
Effective
California AI regulation guide lists every tracked rule for this jurisdiction with timelines and obligation tallies.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.