AB 325 is California's answer to algorithmic price-fixing, and it has been in force since January 1, 2026. It is narrower than the headlines and broader than the rental industry. The law adds two sections to the Cartwright Act, California's antitrust statute. The first makes it unlawful to use or distribute a "common pricing algorithm," meaning any method or software used by two or more businesses that uses competitor data to recommend or set a price, as part of an agreement to restrain trade, or to pressure another business into adopting the price it recommends. The second makes antitrust cases easier to plead. It does not name landlords, it does not ban pricing software, and it does not stop a housing provider (landlord) in Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Bay Point or Concord from looking at public listings before setting rent. What it reaches is the shared-data pricing service, and that is the question an owner should ask about any tool that "suggests" a rent. The rest of the 2026 rulebook is in our California landlord laws guide.
What AB 325 actually says
The operative text is short. Business and Professions Code 16729 has two prohibitions:
- Subdivision (a): it is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce in violation of the Cartwright Act.
- Subdivision (b): it is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm if the person coerces another person to set or adopt a price or commercial term the algorithm recommended, for the same or similar products or services in California.
The definitions in subdivision (d) carry the weight. "Common pricing algorithm" means any methodology, including a computer, software or other technology, used by two or more persons, that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set or otherwise influence a price or commercial term. "Distribute" includes selling, licensing, providing access to or making available by subscription. "Commercial term" includes level of service, availability and output. "Price" includes anything of value given in payment, including compensation to employees and contractors. "Person" means businesses as well as individuals, and excludes the end consumer.
The second section, 16756.1, changes how cases start: a complaint under the Cartwright Act is sufficient if it alleges facts showing an agreement is plausible, and it is not required to allege facts that exclude the possibility of independent action. That is a procedural change with practical effect. The hardest part of an algorithmic price-fixing case has been proving that competitors who never spoke to each other were in fact coordinating, and the new section lets a case survive the first motion on plausibility.
What AB 325 does not say
Three things the law is often described as doing, and does not:
- It is not a rent law. The statute never mentions landlords, rent or housing. It is a general amendment to the Cartwright Act that applies to any product or service sold in California. Rental housing is where the political energy came from, not where the text stops.
- It is not a ban on pricing software. Using software to set a price is lawful. The prohibitions attach to a shared algorithm used as part of an agreement to restrain trade, or to coercion. A tool one owner uses alone, on data that is public or their own, meets neither prong.
- It is not limited to secret data. The definition says "competitor data," not "non-public competitor data." A service that pools only public listing prices across participants can still be a common pricing algorithm; what makes it unlawful is the agreement or the coercion, not the secrecy of the inputs.
Why it was written
The federal Department of Justice sued RealPage in August 2024, alleging that its revenue management software pooled nonpublic, competitively sensitive rent and lease data from competing landlords and used it to recommend prices, and several large apartment operators were later named. In November 2025 the Department and RealPage announced a proposed settlement with no damages and no admission, under which RealPage's products would stop using nonpublic, real-time competitor data from active leases for a set period; the settlement was still awaiting the court's approval in the most recent public notices we found in mid-2026, and California was among the states that joined the case and were not part of that settlement. AB 325's sponsor, Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, described the bill as addressing algorithmic price fixing on essentials such as housing, groceries and health care. Her office's release also notes that the bill was amended, after business concerns, so that liability attaches when a company coerces competitors to adopt the algorithm's recommendations, with room for businesses that use algorithmic tools unknowingly or for lawful purposes. Governor Newsom signed it on October 6, 2025, the same day as SB 763, which raised the Cartwright Act's criminal fines.
The penalties
AB 325 did not create new penalties; it attached new conduct to penalties that already existed and were raised the same day.
- Civil. Under section 16750, any person injured in business or property by a Cartwright Act violation may sue for three times the damages, interest, injunctive relief and a reasonable attorney's fee, whether they dealt with the defendant directly or indirectly. A resident who paid a coordinated rent is an injured person in that sense. The Attorney General may sue on behalf of the state and its agencies.
- Criminal. Under section 16755, as amended by SB 763 effective January 1, 2026, a corporation may be fined up to $6 million, and an individual up to $1 million or imprisoned for one, two or three years, or both; either may instead be fined up to twice the gain from the violation or twice the loss it caused. Anyone who "knowingly carries out" the prices or furnishes information to assist the scheme is covered, which reaches managers and employees, not only the company. The limitations period is four years from the last act.
What this means for an East Contra Costa owner
Most owners with one to ten homes will never be near this law. The useful exercise is to sort the ways rent gets set into three groups.
Looking at the market yourself. Checking asking rents on Zillow, Apartments.com or Craigslist, driving the neighborhood, or asking what a comparable home leased for is independent action using public information. There is no agreement with anyone and no one is coercing you. This is what the law protects, and it is what most owners do.
Hiring a manager who runs comps. A comparable-rent analysis built from public listings and the manager's own leasing history is the same thing done professionally. The manager is not pooling your data with other owners' data to produce a shared recommendation; they are advising you on your home.
Subscribing to a pricing service. The question changes when a service collects participating owners' or managers' rents, occupancy or lease terms, combines them, and sends each participant a recommended rent or a recommended vacancy strategy. That is a methodology used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to influence price, which is the definition. Whether using it is unlawful depends on the two prongs: is there an agreement among participants to follow it, and does the service or anyone else pressure participants to adopt its numbers, for example by requiring acceptance or penalizing deviation. Those are the questions to put to any vendor, in writing: whose data trains the recommendation, whether other local owners feed the same model, whether you are free to ignore the output without consequence, and what the vendor changed after the RealPage case.
One more boundary sits outside AB 325 entirely. No pricing method, human or software, overrides a rent cap. Statewide, AB 1482 limits increases on covered homes; our AB 1482 guide covers which homes are covered. Locally, Antioch's Rent Stabilization Ordinance caps increases at the lower of 3 percent or 60 percent of CPI, and Concord's Residential Tenant Protection Program at 5 percent as of August 1, 2025; our guide to who regulates property managers has both programs. A software recommendation above a cap is not a pricing question; it is a violation waiting to happen.
How Croskey sets rent
Our pricing comes from a comparable-rent market analysis, which is the published first step of our proven process: the home is reviewed for rent-readiness and priced against comparable homes before the listing goes live. The comparables come from two sources, both ours to use: public listing data for the submarket, and the achieved rents and days on market in our own portfolio, which is real leasing history rather than an estimate. Software assembles those comparables, tracks the listing while it is on the market, and flags the signals we described in our lease-only guide: views without inquiries, no-shows, and a listing approaching 21 days. The pricing decision itself, the asking rent and any reduction, is made by a licensed person, and at 21 days on the market the owner hears from us with a specific move before they have to ask.
We do not subscribe to any service that pools other owners' or managers' rent data to generate recommendations, and nothing in our stack sends your rent or occupancy data to one. On renewals, the published process is the same: a comparable-rent analysis, AB 1482 coverage verified before any increase is set, and an owner-approved renewal offer. Where we use AI in drafting and analysis, it is disclosed and reviewed under the broker of record, as our AI and human oversight page explains.
Quick reference
| Question | Answer | Where |
|---|---|---|
| What did AB 325 add? | B&P 16729 (common pricing algorithm) and 16756.1 (pleading standard) | Chapter 338 of 2025 |
| When did it take effect? | January 1, 2026 | Signed October 6, 2025 |
| Who does it cover? | Any person or business selling any product or service in California, not only landlords | 16729(d)(5), 16702 |
| What is unlawful? | Using or distributing a common pricing algorithm as part of an agreement to restrain trade, or while coercing another to adopt its recommendation | 16729(a), (b) |
| Is public data exempt? | No. The definition says "competitor data." What matters is the agreement or the coercion | 16729(d)(3) |
| Civil exposure | Triple damages, interest, injunction, attorney fees; indirect purchasers may sue | 16750 |
| Criminal exposure | Corporation up to $6 million; individual up to $1 million or one to three years; or twice the gain or loss; four-year window | 16755, as amended by SB 763 |
| Who enforces? | Attorney General and district attorneys; private plaintiffs including residents | 16750, 16755 |
Our read, from the operator's chair
The pricing conversation we have most often is with an owner arriving from self-management, and what follows are patterns from those intake files, not one owner's story. The asking rent they bring is usually a portal estimate, and the gap between that estimate and what comparable homes in the same corridor actually leased for is the first thing the comparable-rent analysis shows. That gap is not a legal problem. It is a vacancy problem, and it is why we price from achieved rents rather than from an algorithm's guess about the market.
The second pattern is the renewal where the increase was set by a number on a screen. Since 2024 more of those numbers have come from software, and the owner often cannot say what data the software used. For a covered home the answer rarely matters, because AB 1482 or a local cap decides the ceiling anyway. For an exempt home it matters more, and the useful question is the one AB 325 implies: whose data is in that number, and who else is being told the same thing.
Our view is that the law changes very little for an owner who prices from public listings and their own history, and quite a lot for the vendors who built businesses on pooling everyone else's. The right response for most owners is not to stop using software. It is to know what the software is using.
Where to go from here
If any tool you use recommends a rent, send the vendor those four questions in writing and keep the answers with your lease file. The California landlord laws guide carries every 2026 requirement in one place, and if you would like to see how a comparable-rent analysis prices your home in Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Bay Point or Concord, a consultation is the simple way to ask.
This guide is general information for California rental owners, not legal advice. AB 325 and the Cartwright Act sections cited are current to October 2026; antitrust questions about a specific tool or contract belong with an attorney. Croskey Real Estate is an Equal Housing Opportunity provider. DRE #01990430.
Frequently asked questions
What does AB 325 prohibit?
Two things, under Business and Professions Code 16729. Using or distributing a common pricing algorithm, meaning any method or software used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize or set a price or commercial term, as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain trade; and using or distributing one while coercing another person into adopting the price or term it recommended. A separate section, 16756.1, lets a Cartwright Act complaint proceed on facts that make an agreement plausible, without having to rule out independent action.
Does AB 325 apply only to landlords and rent?
No. The statute does not mention landlords, rent or housing. It applies to any person or business selling any product or service in California, and 'price' includes wages paid to employees and contractors. Rental housing was the political reason for the bill, and it is where the RealPage litigation drew attention, but the text is general.
Can a California landlord still use rent pricing software after AB 325?
Yes. The law does not ban pricing software. Using a tool on your own data or on public listing data, as an independent decision, meets neither prohibition. The question arises with a service that pools participating owners' rent or occupancy data and sends each participant a recommendation, and even then the conduct is unlawful only as part of an agreement to restrain trade or when someone is coerced into adopting the recommended price. Ask any vendor, in writing, whose data trains the recommendation and whether you are free to ignore it without consequence.
What are the penalties for violating AB 325?
The Cartwright Act's. Civil: three times the damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees for any person injured directly or indirectly (section 16750). Criminal: a fine of up to $6 million for a corporation, and up to $1 million or one to three years in prison for an individual, or in either case up to twice the gain or loss (section 16755, as raised by SB 763 effective January 1, 2026). The Attorney General and district attorneys prosecute; residents and other injured parties may sue.
Is it legal to check Zillow or Apartments.com when setting my rent?
Yes. Looking at public asking rents and deciding your own price is independent action with public information; there is no agreement with other owners and no coercion. The same is true of a manager's comparable-rent analysis built from public listings and its own leasing history. Note that no pricing method overrides a rent cap: AB 1482 statewide where it applies, and the Antioch and Concord local caps.
How does Croskey set rent?
From a comparable-rent market analysis using public listing data and the achieved rents in Croskey's own portfolio. Software assembles the comparables and tracks the listing; a licensed person makes the pricing decision, and the owner hears a specific pricing or marketing move at 21 days on the market. Croskey does not subscribe to any service that pools other owners' rent data, and every increase is checked against AB 1482 and local caps before it is set.
Sources
- AB 325 (2025), Cartwright Act: violations, Chapter 338, approved October 6, 2025, retrieved October 2026
- California Business and Professions Code section 16729 (common pricing algorithms), effective January 1, 2026, retrieved October 2026
- California Business and Professions Code section 16756.1 (pleading standard), effective January 1, 2026, retrieved October 2026
- California Business and Professions Code section 16750 (civil enforcement, treble damages), retrieved October 2026
- California Business and Professions Code section 16755 (criminal penalties), as amended by SB 763 effective January 1, 2026, retrieved October 2026
- Office of Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, press release on the signing of AB 325, October 6, 2025, retrieved October 2026
- Croskey Real Estate, proven process (comparable-rent market analysis; AB 1482 check at renewal), retrieved October 2026
- Croskey Real Estate, AI and human oversight, retrieved October 2026
