Sacramento is punishing Main Street for Big Tech’s sins

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — California’s so-called COMPETE Act just cleared the State Senate Judiciary Committee with a 9-2 vote, and it’s heading toward a full Senate vote that could make it law. This is the moment for the Senate to do what the Assembly didn’t: step back and take a hard look at who this bill protects and, more importantly, who it still leaves exposed.

AB 1776 is being sold as a tool to finally hold Big Tech accountable. But you shouldn’t believe the packaging, as it doesn’t match what’s inside the box.

Proponents of the bill claim its purpose is to go after corporate giants, but in practice, the bill opens courthouse doors to lawsuits against family-owned and small to mid-sized businesses. This is simply the opposite of creating more competition to benefit Californians’ wallets.

The bill’s author may have added an exemption for businesses with fewer than 100 employees and under $10 million in annual revenue after early pushback, but even that framing deserves some scrutiny. A Black-owned business with 110 employees, a growing minority-owned food manufacturer that crossed the threshold after one good year, or a mid-sized contracting firm that took a decade to build itself up — all these businesses could be swept up into the undertow of this bill. 

None of these businesses are Big Tech, and they certainly do not dominate the market. Black and Brown entrepreneurs in this state already fight harder than anybody else in the marketplace just to get a foot in the door, whether it’s for capital, shelf space or even a fair shot. But under this bill, an ordinary business decision — like how to price a product, which retailer to sell through or how to structure a distribution deal — can now be second-guessed in a courtroom by anyone with a grievance and a lawyer. 

We have seen this story play out before: a policy dressed up as justice ends up landing hardest on the very communities it claims to protect. As it stands, the bill tells California courts to stop leaning on decades of federal antitrust precedent. Whatever its flaws, that precedent at least gave business owners some idea of where the line was. This type of uncertainty will disproportionately affect those who can’t afford a fleet of lawyers to defend themselves, while the big corporations sit back and let their legal teams handle it.

The timing also couldn’t be worse. As Californians, we’re already carrying some of the highest tax burdens and the thickest regulatory rulebooks in the country, with even more tax measures sitting on this November’s ballot. Pile the threat of legal exposure on top of that and you’re giving employers a reason to take their jobs and their investment somewhere cheaper. Do we really want to encourage an exodus from our state? That doesn’t sound like progress to me. 

I talk to business owners and entrepreneurs in my community every week, and I believe this legislation is aimed at the wrong people. Legislators should be seeking accountability from the Big Tech companies that dominate markets and squeeze everyone else out. Casting this wide of a net risks dragging down every small or mid-size business standing nearby. 

The bill narrowly passed the Assembly by just three votes. In a chamber where Democrats hold a supermajority, that should be a sign. The full Senate still has room to act.

Bishop Dwight Earl Williams is the CEO and founder of New Genesis Housing Development.