SB 25 creates the California Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Act, which requires parties that file a federal Hart‑Scott‑Rodino (HSR) premerger notification to also submit an electronic copy of the HSR form to the California Attorney General when the transaction has a sufficient California nexus. The bill sets two triggers: the filing party’s principal place of business in California, or California net sales tied to the transaction equal to at least 20% of the federal filing threshold.
The statute prescribes timing (electronic submission within one business day), rules for providing additional documentary material, a modest fee structure, confidentiality protections (including an exemption from the California Public Records Act), limited sharing rules, and civil penalties for failure to comply. The law becomes operative for HSR filings on or after January 1, 2027 — giving the Attorney General earlier access to information relevant to state antitrust enforcement while attempting to preserve private-party confidentiality.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires an electronic copy of the federal HSR form to be filed with the California Attorney General within one business day when the filer has a California principal place of business or the transaction involves sufficient California sales; additional documentary material must accompany some filings or be produced on request. The Attorney General must provide secure receipt and storage and may assess modest filing fees.
Who It Affects
Merging parties that submit HSR notifications to the federal agencies and either have their principal place of business in California or whose related California net sales reach at least 20% of the federal filing threshold. It also affects the California Attorney General’s office and other state attorneys general that might receive shared materials.
Why It Matters
The bill gives California's antitrust enforcers near‑real‑time access to the documents federal agencies receive, creating a parallel state reporting mechanism that tightens state-level oversight. It also establishes confidentiality, narrow disclosure windows, and penalties designed to balance investigatory needs against commercial secrecy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 25 imports the federal HSR reporting universe into a state reporting requirement: anyone who files an HSR notification must also send a complete electronic copy of that HSR form to the California Attorney General when the filer’s main office is in California or when the sales tied to the deal in California meet a 20% threshold of the federal filing cutoff. If the filer’s principal place of business is in California, the filer must include the additional documentary material that typically accompanies an HSR submission; if the California nexus is only on the 20% sales test, the Attorney General can request those supplemental documents and the filer then has seven business days to deliver them.
The bill is precise about timing and format: the copy must be electronic and submitted within one business day of the federal filing. The Attorney General must provide a secure channel to receive and store the materials.
SB 25 authorizes two filing fees — $1,000 where the filer is California‑based and $500 for the 20% sales trigger or for producing additional documentary material on request — with fee revenue earmarked to the Attorney General’s antitrust account and adjustable every five years by the California CPI.Confidentiality is a central feature. SB 25 broadly exempts the HSR form and accompanying materials from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act and bars the Attorney General from publicly confirming that a filing was made or disclosing the merger details.
The statute nevertheless permits disclosure in judicial or administrative proceedings under a protective order and allows the Attorney General to share materials with federal antitrust agencies or other state attorneys general, but only where those states have equivalent confidentiality protections and agree to maintain secrecy. The Attorney General must return or destroy submitted materials within 120 days after the later of the transaction’s close or the end of related legal proceedings.Failure to meet the filing or delivery obligations can trigger civil penalties.
After written notice and a three‑business‑day cure period, the Attorney General may impose fines up to $25,000 per day for continued noncompliance. The act emphasizes uniformity with other states that adopt the Uniform Antitrust Pre‑Merger Notification Act and applies to HSR filings made on or after January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 25 requires electronic submission of the HSR form to the California Attorney General within one business day of the federal HSR filing.
If the filer’s principal place of business is in California, the filer must include the complete additional documentary material with the state submission; otherwise, the AG may request that material and the filer has seven business days to provide it.
The Attorney General may charge a $1,000 fee for filings from California‑based filers and $500 for filings that meet the California sales threshold or for complying with an AG request for additional material; fees go into the AG antitrust account and can be CPI‑adjusted every five years.
Submitted HSR forms and supporting materials are exempt from the California Public Records Act and generally cannot be disclosed, though SB 25 allows disclosure under a protective order in proceedings or shared with federal agencies and other states that have equivalent confidentiality protections.
After written notice and a three‑business‑day cure period, the Attorney General may impose civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for failure to meet the statute’s filing or production requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the statute’s name: the California Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Act. This signals the drafters’ intent to align California’s requirements with a model uniform act and to frame the law as a state counterpart to federal HSR filing obligations.
Definitions and federal alignment
Sets defined terms and ties the statute directly to the Hart‑Scott‑Rodino Act and the HSR form. Key definitions include what counts as "additional documentary material," an explicit cross‑reference to the federal filing threshold, and recognition of the Uniform Antitrust Pre‑Merger Notification Act. By defining "filing threshold" as the threshold in effect when the filer submits the HSR, the statute tracks federal adjustments and avoids a separate state numerical trigger.
Who must file, what to file, timing, and fees
Prescribes two alternative triggers for state filing: (1) the filer’s principal place of business is in California, in which case the filer must send the HSR form and the supplemental documentary materials; or (2) the filer (or an entity it controls) had California net sales tied to the transaction equal to at least 20% of the federal filing threshold, in which case the filer must send the HSR form and supply additional materials only upon AG request within seven business days. All required submissions must be electronic and delivered within one business day of the federal filing. The Attorney General must provide a secure receipt mechanism and may charge $1,000 for filings under the principal‑place trigger and $500 under the sales‑threshold or production‑on‑request paths; fees are deposited to an antitrust account and may be CPI‑adjusted no more than once every five years.
Confidentiality, limited disclosure, and retention
Declares the HSR form and additional materials exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and forbids the Attorney General from publicizing that a filing occurred or the merger proposed. The Attorney General may disclose materials in judicial or administrative proceedings under a protective order or share them with federal antitrust agencies. The statute also requires the Attorney General to destroy or return materials within 120 days after the later of the transaction’s close or the end of any directly related legal proceedings, creating a finite retention window intended to protect commercial secrecy.
Sharing with other state attorneys general
Authorizes the Attorney General to disclose submitted materials to another state’s attorney general, but only if that state has enacted the Uniform Act or a substantively equivalent statute with comparable confidentiality protections and provides assurances to maintain confidentiality. The bill requires the Attorney General to notify the original filer at least five business days before making such a disclosure, giving the filer a short notice window to seek intervention or protective relief if it chooses.
Civil penalties for noncompliance
Allows the Attorney General to levy civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for violations of the filing and production duties in Section 16782, but only after providing written notice and a three‑business‑day opportunity to cure. The high per‑day cap creates a potentially significant exposure for filers who fail to meet the statute’s narrow timing or production obligations.
Uniformity and effective date
Directs courts to consider uniformity with other jurisdictions that adopt the model act and makes the statute applicable only to HSR filings submitted on or after January 1, 2027. This both encourages multi‑state consistency and gives practitioners a clear date from which compliance obligations begin.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- California Attorney General — Gains near‑real‑time access to HSR forms and, in many cases, supporting documents, improving the AG’s ability to evaluate transactions affecting California consumers and markets.
- California consumers and local competitors — Benefit indirectly from earlier and fuller state review that can identify deal effects on California markets that federal enforcement may overlook.
- State and multi‑state enforcement coalitions — Other state attorneys general that meet the bill’s confidentiality parity can receive materials to coordinate investigations and remedies.
- Private plaintiffs and civil litigators — May gain earlier visibility into transactions and documentary evidence if materials are disclosed under protective orders in proceedings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Merging parties and targets — Face added compliance work: preparing and transmitting electronic copies, meeting a one‑business‑day deadline, and, in some cases, assembling additional documentary material on short notice.
- Outside and in‑house counsel and deal teams — Must adapt HSR workflows to produce California submissions, respond to AG requests within seven business days, and manage confidentiality and notice issues.
- California Attorney General’s office — Must run a secure intake and storage system, review submissions, and manage intergovernmental sharing and retention obligations, tasks only partly offset by the modest fees the bill allows.
- Out‑of‑state firms with substantial California sales — Even companies without a California headquarters will trigger obligations if their California sales tied to the transaction reach the 20% cutoff, so geographic distance will not insulate filers from requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between giving California’s antitrust enforcers timely, document‑level access to evaluate mergers affecting the state and preserving private parties’ commercial confidentiality and workable deal processes; accelerating transparency for enforcement inevitably increases compliance burdens and the risk of inadvertent disclosures, and there is no frictionless way to fully satisfy both priorities.
SB 25 attempts to thread a narrow needle: it gives the California Attorney General quick access to the same filings federal agencies receive while promising strong confidentiality protections. That balance raises implementation questions.
The statute requires a "complete electronic copy" but offers no technical or security standards for transmission and storage; AG offices will need to develop secure portals and IT policies quickly to avoid accidental disclosures. The one‑business‑day submission window is tight relative to typical deal workflows and could force rushed internal processes, especially for complex transactions with extensive supporting materials.
The sharing regime depends on "parity" in other states’ confidentiality laws, but SB 25 does not define how the Attorney General should evaluate equivalence, nor does it address which party bears the litigation risk if a receiving state mishandles materials. The 120‑day destruction/return requirement protects secrecy but may collide with long investigations or multi‑state litigation where preserving evidence for discovery is necessary.
Finally, the penalty structure — up to $25,000 per day after a three‑day cure window — creates a heavy enforcement stick; without clearer guidance on what constitutes a cure or on excusable delays, filers may face outsized exposure for technical slips.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.