Washington – The Computer & Communications Industry Association today released its 2026 State Competition Landscape report, examining major competition policy developments across state legislatures and highlighting emerging regulatory trends affecting technology companies and businesses operating across the country.
This report highlights personalized pricing legislation as a defining competition policy trend in 2026, with Maryland enacting restrictions. California also advanced significant antitrust reforms, while states including New York, Washington, and Colorado remain important to the evolving landscape of competition regulation. CCIA warns that differing state laws and enforcement standards risk creating a patchwork of regulations that increases compliance costs, creates legal uncertainty, and discourages investment and innovation.
California enacted several major competition measures in 2026, including AB 325 on algorithmic pricing, SB 763 increasing Cartwright Act penalties, and SB 25 establishing merger-reporting requirements. Governor Gavin Newsom also signed AB 1776, the COMPETE Act, which extends the Cartwright Act to single-firm conduct for the first time. Meanwhile, Maryland enacted restrictions on certain personalized pricing practices, New York continues to consider antitrust and pricing legislation, and Washington and Colorado maintain broad merger-reporting requirements. CCIA expects personalized pricing to remain a key focus in 2027 and will continue to advocate for targeted, economically sound policies that protect consumers while supporting competition. The full report provides a state-by-state overview of major legislative developments and CCIA’s engagement on these issues.
The following statement can be attributed to Megan Stokes, State Policy Director for CCIA:
“Competition is essential to innovation. Our 2026 State Competition Landscape report shows how broad or duplicative state regulations can create uncertainty and unnecessary costs for businesses and consumers. From personalized pricing restrictions in Maryland to sweeping antitrust changes in California and proposed legislation in New York, states are continuing to take different approaches to competition policy. We encourage lawmakers to pursue clear, targeted policies grounded in sound economic analysis that address anticompetitive conduct without undermining innovation.”
