Legislation that would have limited cost-cutting discounts for California consumers has been delayed to 2026 after it faced opposition from several groups including CalChamber after being identified as a Cost Driver.
The California Chamber of Commerce continues to oppose AB 446 (Ward; D-San Diego unless it is amended.
The bill earned its Cost Driver designation because it originally made it considerably harder for businesses to offer basic-consumer-friendly pricing practices — such as local discounts, loyalty programs, and others — by creating a private right of action for any use of personal information or aggregate data in pricing if new consent standards were not met. AB 446 also conflicted with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by rewriting disclosure and consent obligations necessary to use personally identifiable information and created entirely new consent and opt-in obligations for the use of aggregate information.
August 29 amendments limiting the bill to “grocery establishments” and excluding some of the previously covered industries led to the removal of the Cost Driver tag.
On September 4, the author said he was making AB 446 a two-year bill, meaning action is delayed until January 2026
The CalChamber-led business coalition, including local chambers of commerce, opposes AB 446 unless it is amended. The coalition detailed its concerns in a September 3 letter, pointing to AB 446’s contradictory language on whether discounts are or are not regulated by the bill.
The conflict means grocery establishments cannot tell whether their discounts are covered by AB 446, the coalition stated. Being unable to determine whether a court will decide the discounts comply with AB 446 if it becomes law, concerned businesses may be forced to stop offering certain discounts in California, the coalition noted.
The coalition suggested changes in the bill language to resolve the problem. Without this issue being addressed, the coalition said, AB 446 will create confusion and litigation risks for businesses as they attempt to navigate a statute with two obvious and conflicting interpretations in its language.
Staff Contact: Robert Moutrie
