By: Leo Caseria (Sheppard Mullin)
California Penal Code § 396 prohibits price gouging in California during a state of emergency. California enacted a few amendments to Section 396 that are effective now. As explained in more detail below, among other things, the amendments close potential loopholes relating to e-commerce, sales of new products, and the relevant benchmark date for pre-emergency prices.
The entire State of California has been under a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 since Governor Newsom’s March 4, 2020 proclamation of a state of emergency, and various California counties have been under separate states of emergency due to the California wildfires. During the current COVID-19 emergency, there has been an explosion of price gouging investigations brought by the State and also by local counties, as well as lawsuits brought by private parties. COVID-19 price gouging investigations and cases have mostly focused on food items (such as eggs) and consumer goods relating to health and hygiene (gloves, toilet paper, hand sanitizer, wipes, etc.).
With the amended version of Section 396, the basic rules for providers of food items and consumer goods remain the same: During a state of emergency, prices may not be increased by more than 10% over pre-emergency prices. Cal. Penal Code § 396(b). A higher price is not unlawful if it is directly attributable to certain costs and is “no more than 10 percent greater than the total of the cost to the seller plus the markup customarily applied by that seller for that good or service in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the state of emergency or local emergency.” Id.
Amended Section 396 includes new language that gives the Governor the power to do by statute certain things he had previously been doing by executive order. The statute also now expressly covers pandemics and online sales. Key changes of relevance to providers of food items and consumer goods are summarized below….
Featured News
FTC and State Attorneys General Sue John Deere Over Repair Restrictions in Antitrust Case
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Enbridge Wins Legal Battle Against Ducere’s Antitrust Allegations
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
GOP Pushes for Antitrust Authority Consolidation Under DOJ in New Legislation
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Canadian Government Approves Bunge-Viterra Merger with Conditions
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
SEC Sues Elon Musk Over Delayed Disclosure of Twitter Stock Ownership
Jan 15, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand