AB 1345 adds a new Section 16720.1 to the California Business and Professions Code, making it unlawful for one or more persons to “act, cause, take, or direct” any measure that restrains trade or that monopolizes or monopsonizes (including attempts, maintenance, conspiracies, and combinations). The bill explicitly folds labor-market harms into California’s competition mandate by treating monopsony and attempts to monopsonize as prohibited conduct.
This change enlarges the scope of conduct punishable under the Cartwright Act and therefore broadens criminal exposure for businesses and individuals. The bill also contains legislative findings framing worker competition and labor markets as part of consumer-welfare–oriented antitrust enforcement and makes a nonsubstantive edit to the code's caption.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates Section 16720.1, which outlaws measures that restrain trade or that monopolize/monopsonize, and expressly covers attempts, maintenance of a monopoly/monopsony, and conspiracies to do so. It imports Section 16720’s scope into the new provision by reference.
Who It Affects
Large employers, firms that coordinate hiring or wages (including through no-poach or wage-setting agreements), antitrust defendants, compliance and HR teams, and criminal prosecutors in California. Worker-advocacy groups and smaller competitors may also be affected by enforcement outcomes.
Why It Matters
By naming monopsony and broadly defined restraints as unlawful under the Cartwright Act, California signals a sharper statutory tool against labor-market anticompetitive conduct and expands the universe of acts that can trigger criminal prosecution under state antitrust law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1345 adds a discrete new section to the Business and Professions Code that changes which competitive practices California treats as unlawful under the Cartwright Act. Rather than limiting liability to conduct already enumerated in Section 16720, the bill makes it illegal for one or more persons to "act, cause, take, or direct" any measure that restrains trade or that monopolizes or monopsonizes.
The language covers attempts, maintenance of monopolies/monopsonies, and combinations or conspiracies—so coordinated agreements or unilateral actions aimed at excluding competition in buying or selling markets are all within scope.
The bill’s findings make clear the Legislature intends to bring labor markets squarely within antitrust protection. It defines "restraint of trade" to include actions cognizable under the existing statutory provision (Section 16720), but extends reach by emphasizing measures that affect competition for workers as well as consumers and businesses.
In practice, that means conduct such as employer agreements not to solicit each other’s employees, wage-fixing arrangements, or practices that depress workers’ bargaining power may be subject to enforcement under state antitrust criminal provisions.Importantly, the text does not create a separate civil-remedy scheme or specify new penalties; instead, it expands the set of wrongful acts that can be prosecuted under the Cartwright Act. The bill also inserts the new statutory language without articulating standards for intent, safe harbors for common business practices, or interaction rules with federal antitrust law—leaving courts and prosecutors to develop those contours.
Finally, the measure contains a procedural clause stating no reimbursement is required to local agencies because the change creates or alters crimes under California law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1345 adds Section 16720.1 to the Business and Professions Code, expressly prohibiting actions that "act, cause, take, or direct" restraints of trade.
The new section explicitly targets monopolize and monopsonize conduct and covers attempts, maintenance, and conspiracies to monopsonize or monopolize.
The bill incorporates existing Section 16720 by reference, stating that "restraint of trade" includes actions cognizable under that section.
Legislative findings frame labor-market competition—workers’ freedom to choose employment—as a core objective of California’s antitrust enforcement.
The bill includes a no-reimbursement clause saying local agencies need not be reimbursed because it creates or changes a crime under state law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Frames labor markets and consolidation as antitrust priorities
This portion catalogs legislative intent: it identifies protecting competition in labor markets, concerns about market consolidation, and the need for strong definitions of monopolization and unilateral anticompetitive conduct. For practitioners, these findings are signals about enforcement priorities rather than operative law, but they will matter for statutory interpretation and prosecutorial emphasis if courts consult legislative history when resolving ambiguities.
Substantive prohibition—broadened targets and language
This is the operative text. It makes unlawful any person who "acts, causes, takes, or directs" a measure that restrains trade or monopsonizes/monopolizes, and it expressly covers attempts, maintenance of market dominance, and conspiracies. The provision also cross-references Section 16720 so that previously recognized forms of restraint are explicitly included. Practically, the wording expands the universe of actionable conduct and uses phrasing ('act, cause, take, or direct') that can reach indirect or orchestrated behavior—potentially including nontraditional actors who arrange or enable anticompetitive outcomes.
Budgetary procedural clause tied to criminalization
The bill states that the State need not reimburse local agencies because the only new costs arise from creating or changing a crime under the California Constitution. That provision is procedural but consequential: it signals the state considers the changes criminal in nature and shifts any incremental enforcement costs to local governments unless other statutory reimbursement triggers apply.
Technical caption change to the code
The bill makes a nonsubstantive edit to the code's caption and citation language. This change does not affect substantive rights or duties; it is a housekeeping amendment included alongside the substantive additions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Economy across all five countries.
Explore Economy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Workers and job seekers: The bill treats labor-market distortions (for example, coordinated wage suppression or no-poach agreements) as anticompetitive conduct, creating a statutory basis for enforcement that could increase deterrence and remedies against practices that limit employees’ freedom to choose work.
- Small employers and new entrants: Firms competing for labor may gain from enforcement that targets dominant employers’ exclusionary or wage-suppressing tactics, leveling recruiting and compensation playing fields.
- State prosecutors and consumer/worker advocates: The Attorney General and local prosecutors receive broader statutory language to bring actions against monopsonistic or monopolistic conduct, and advocacy groups gain legislative support for pursuing labor-market antitrust claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large employers and firms that coordinate hiring or wage policies: Companies that rely on inter-firm agreements, centralized hiring platforms, or buyer-side market power may face greater exposure to criminal investigation and prosecution.
- Corporate compliance, HR, and legal teams: Organizations will need to reassess hiring agreements, vendor relationships, and recruiting practices to avoid falling within the bill’s broad "act, cause, take, or direct" language, increasing compliance costs.
- Local prosecutors, public defenders, and courts: Criminalization expands the kinds of antitrust conduct that can trigger prosecutions, which can increase caseloads and require specialized economic and labor-market expertise in public agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening tools to police monopsonistic and labor-market harms (protecting workers and small competitors) and the risks created by criminalizing a broad, vaguely defined set of behaviors (which can chill legitimate business activity, increase prosecutorial discretion, and burden courts without clear mens rea standards or safe harbors).
The bill’s broad phrasing—"act, cause, take, or direct a measure, action, or event"—is intentionally wide, which helps prosecutors reach indirect or facilitated anticompetitive schemes but also creates uncertainty for ordinary business conduct. The draft does not define mens rea standards (for example, whether intentionality, knowledge, or reckless disregard is required) nor does it establish statutory safe harbors for common business practices such as ordinary mergers, joint ventures, or hiring cooperation that have procompetitive justifications.
That omission leaves courts and prosecutors to develop thresholds for criminal liability.
Another open question is how this state statute will interact with federal antitrust law and doctrines. California can set stricter standards than federal law, but parallel enforcement risks inconsistent outcomes and forum-shopping; it also raises questions about civil liability versus criminal exposure, since the bill expands acts punishable under the Cartwright Act without creating a separate civil remedy or clarifying whether private plaintiffs can rely on the new section.
Finally, because the bill reframes labor-market harms as a core antitrust target, it may chill legitimate collaborations or HR practices unless regulators or courts supply clearer guidance and defenses—something the bill does not provide.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.