California’s Aggressive State Antitrust Enforcement Efforts Continue to Grow

• A new California Attorney General settlement targeting “no-poach” provisions in sanitation-services contracts.
• Parallel actions by other state attorneys general, including no-poach cases in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois and a multistate RealPage/Greystar settlement on rental-pricing algorithms, signaling growing state interest in labor restraints and algorithmic pricing.
• Statutory changes—SB 763 (enhanced penalties under the Cartwright Act, California’s primary antitrust statute) and AB 325 (targeting “common pricing algorithms” and lowering pleading standards)—that will further raise the stakes for companies operating in California beginning January 1, 2026.

Taken together, these developments signal that businesses with California or multistate operations should reassess antitrust exposure tied to labor-market practices, pricing with algorithms, and related information-sharing or coordination practices.

New “No-Poach” Enforcement Case
On December 2, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with Packers Sanitation Services Inc. (d/b/a Fortrex) (PSSI) resolving a lawsuit over the company’s use of “no-poach” provisions in its sanitation-services contracts with California customers. Rather than invoking the Cartwright Act, the complaint proceeded under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), relying on Business and Professions Code § 16600, which broadly prohibits contracts that restrain anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business.

The proposed judgment filed with the court provides for monetary penalties and injunctive relief, including removing the challenged no-poach provisions from existing agreements and notifying affected workers and customers that these terms will no longer be used. The case continues prior California enforcement efforts against no-poach agreements and underscores that the AG can challenge labor restraints through UCL theories, even without a Cartwright Act claim. (For more information on this enforcement action, see M. Krotoski & V. Sidhu, “Calif. AG's No-Poach Case Reflects Tougher Antitrust Stance,” Law360 (Dec. 15, 2025).)

Broader State AG Enforcement Trend—with California at the Leading Edge
The no-poach enforcement is part of a continuing enforcement trend of state attorneys general focused on labor-market restraints, data-driven coordination and related antitrust issues.

In the labor space, other states have brought similar recent enforcement actions. In late 2024, the New York and New Jersey Attorneys General reached settlements with building-services companies that barred them from using no-poach clauses in cleaning and maintenance service contracts and imposed ongoing compliance and reporting obligations. In June 2025, the Illinois Attorney General secured a $1 million settlement with Midway Staffing, the final defendant in a series of cases alleging that temporary staffing agencies and a shared client used no-poach and wage-fixing agreements to restrict worker mobility and suppress pay, bringing total recoveries in that matter to approximately $5.5 million. Together with PSSI, these actions highlight that companies can expect state-level enforcement on no-poach and non-solicitation agreements, independent of federal action.

In the pricing arena, federal and state enforcement agencies have expressed concern about algorithmic tools, common data platforms and AI-driven demand models that may facilitate coordination or harden price alignment even where there is little or no direct communication. In November 2025, the California Attorney General, along with other state attorneys general, announced a consent judgment with Greystar Management Services LLC as part of the RealPage rental-pricing litigation. Under the settlement, Greystar agreed to pay $7 million and accept extensive injunctive relief restricting its use of revenue-management products relying on competitors’ nonpublic data, limiting participation in certain user meetings, requiring advance notice of new pricing tools adopted in the settling states and subjecting the company to ongoing compliance reporting and monitoring. Separately, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a proposed settlement in its case against RealPage Inc., alleging algorithmic coordination and information sharing in rental housing markets.

California has also been active in multistate franchise no-poach matters and broader labor-market litigation. In the Deslandes v. McDonald’s litigation, California joined other states in an amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit arguing that franchise no-poach provisions can operate as horizontal, per se unlawful market-allocation agreements that depress wages and limit workers’ opportunities.

Through cases like PSSI, its participation in multistate no-poach and algorithmic-pricing matters and its leadership in strengthening state antitrust laws, California is positioning itself at the forefront of state enforcement efforts in labor markets and emerging, data-driven coordination theories.

California’s Expanding Antitrust Enforcement Toolkit and Aggressive Enforcement Trajectory
These enforcement efforts are reinforced by recent statutory changes that expand California’s antitrust “toolkit.” On October 8, 2025, California enacted SB 763, which significantly increases criminal and civil penalties for Cartwright Act violations. For example, criminal corporate fines have increased to $6 million (from $1 million) per violation, or twice the gain or loss, whichever is greater. California Attorney General Bonta has explained that the enhanced penalties will “sharpen the teeth of a century-old law by increasing penalties for those looking to illegally profit at the cost of workers, consumers, and honest businesses,” and his office has described the legislation as aimed at more effectively deterring corporations from restraining trade, price-fixing and reducing competition.

On October 6, 2025, California enacted AB 325, which targets the use or distribution of “common pricing algorithms” and lowers the pleading standard for Cartwright Act claims. Both statutes take effect on January 1, 2026. AB 325 also establishes two new criminal and civil offenses for (i) using or distributing a common pricing algorithm as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy restraining trade, or (ii) coercing another firm to adopt an algorithm’s recommended price or term for similar products or services in California. 

(For more information on these new laws, see Pillsbury’s prior client alert, “California Establishes New Criminal and Civil Liability Targeting Shared Pricing Algorithms and ‘Coercion,’” and article, M. Krotoski & V. Sidhu, How Calif. Law Cracks Down On Algorithmic Price-Fixing, Law360 (Oct. 20, 2025).)

Against these developments, California Assistant Attorney General Paula Blizzard has previously emphasized the office’s enforcement focus on no-poach agreements and “reinvigorating criminal prosecutions under the Cartwright Act,” underscoring a sustained enforcement trajectory rather than isolated actions.

Why This Matters for Businesses
Businesses with operations, employees or counterparties in California—or in other states where attorneys general have recently brought similar enforcement cases—should review their antitrust compliance programs and take steps to minimize antitrust risk.

Last year, DOJ updated its antitrust compliance guidelines addressing a number of new risk areas, as we previously summarized. The guidelines emphasize core areas that companies can consider in their compliance program. However, based on the new California laws, companies can update antitrust policies to address algorithmic pricing, labor restraints and data-sharing practices. Companies can also train employees on the new California-specific standards.

These developments also interact with DOJ leniency and emerging whistleblower frameworks. Updated leniency guidance and whistleblower incentives can reward early self-reporting of potential collusion or no-poach issues, increasing the risk that internal reporting procedures are bypassed in favor of direct reports by employees or other insiders to enforcement authorities or third parties. Pillsbury’s client alert, “Antitrust Division Announces First-Ever Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Program,” discusses the new program and steps companies should take to strengthen their antitrust compliance and internal reporting frameworks in light of these incentives.

Finally, for companies using algorithms and shared tools—such as inventory pricing, bidding and HR tools, especially those supplied by third-party vendors or relying on common or pooled data—consider whether they could be characterized as “common pricing algorithms” or mechanisms for sharing competitively sensitive information under the new California law.

To mitigate labor market risk, companies should consider auditing contracts to identify and, where appropriate, remove or narrow no-poach, no-hire, non-solicitation and/or other broad non-compete provisions, particularly in services, staffing, franchise and outsourcing agreements that affect California or other affected states’ workers or operations.

In light of California’s heightened enforcement posture, companies have an opportunity now to proactively adjust policies, tools, and contractual practices and to reduce exposure before the new Cartwright Act penalties and algorithm-related offenses take effect in 2026.