California’s new corporate slavery disclosure mandate would force big companies to swear under oath about century-old records — with fines, paperwork, and public posting to follow.
Story Highlights
- AB 2599 compels companies with $100 million+ in revenue to search and disclose slavery-era ties under penalty of perjury.
- Disclosures and supporting records must be made public, creating a searchable repository.
- The Legislature passed the bill and sent it to Governor Gavin Newsom for signature or veto.
- Insurance groups argue the bill duplicates an older, narrower disclosure law.
What AB 2599 Requires From Companies
California lawmakers advanced Assembly Bill 2599, called the Truth in Disclosure Act, to require large companies doing business in the state to review historical records and report links to slavery. The bill sets the bar at more than $100 million in annual worldwide revenue. Covered firms must search records back to the mid-nineteenth century. They must swear, under penalty of perjury, whether they or related entities profited from or financed slavery, and submit corroborating documents.
The state would publish these filings for public view. That means customers, investors, activists, and trial lawyers could search the records. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s analysis states the information must be publicly available. The same analysis confirms the bill’s focus on past buying or selling of enslaved people, use of enslaved people as collateral, or financing such transactions. The affidavit requirement ties each filing to a legal oath, raising the stakes for any errors.
How The Bill Moved And What Comes Next
The Assembly and Senate passed the bill and sent it to Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom now faces a choice to sign it into law or veto it. Reporting says the measure would make California the first state to impose this kind of sworn, public disclosure for corporate slavery-era ties. Supporters frame the bill as a transparency step in a broader reparations policy push that gained steam after a statewide task force issued its final report in 2023.
The bill’s backers argue disclosure under oath deters dishonesty and creates a single source of records. They link the idea to previous California efforts on transparency, such as the supply chains law and earlier slavery-era insurance disclosures. Advocates claim this approach forces large entities to “look under the hood” and face history. Critics counter that the reach is broad, the research costs are high, and the public database invites litigation fishing expeditions rather than healing.
Why Critics Say This Is Duplicative And Costly
Insurance groups point to a two-decade-old California law that already required insurers to disclose slaveholder policies. They say AB 2599 repeats work the state demanded years ago and expands it far beyond insurers to many sectors. That older measure created a public archive of historic insurance records. Opponents argue the new bill risks punishing today’s shareholders and workers for actions from more than a century ago and may fuel lawsuits without proving present harm.
🚨 CALIFORNIA: Lawmakers have passed a bill requiring companies with $100M+ in revenue to dig through records going back to 1849 and disclose historic business ties to slavery — under penalty of perjury.
This isn’t reparations yet.
But when government orders modern companies to…
— MDBayNews (@MDBayNews) August 30, 2026
Business leaders also warn about compliance strain. Companies operating nationwide would need to hunt through scattered archives, mergers, and predecessor files that may be incomplete. Because each filing is under oath, legal teams would likely over-collect, over-review, and over-redact to reduce risk. Those costs land on consumers through higher prices and on retirees through weaker returns. Opponents say California keeps layering mandates that raise costs while families already struggle with inflation.
What This Means For Families, Investors, And Liberty
Public, sworn disclosure sounds simple, but it changes incentives. A public database invites activism and lawsuits, even when a company’s current owners, workers, and customers had no part in the past. Expansive mandates from Sacramento often spill nationwide because firms cannot afford state-by-state rules. That spreads costs, chills investment, and grows government files most citizens never use. Conservatives will see a pattern: compel speech, expand bureaucracy, and let trial lawyers sort it out later.
Supporters cite moral duty and truth-telling. Many readers agree history must be taught clearly. But policy still must be fair, targeted, and workable. A focused archive built by state historians could preserve facts without forcing legal oaths from every large company with any tie to California. Lawmakers should prevent fraud and protect consumers today, not conscript businesses into costly historical audits that do not cut crime, lower energy bills, or reduce taxes. Families deserve better priorities.
Key Open Questions For Californians
How will agencies verify accuracy without creating a new enforcement arm and bigger budgets? How will small investors be protected from lawsuit shocks triggered by century-old records? How will the state keep context with each document so the public is not misled by partial data? The bill’s text and committee analysis describe publication and perjury, but they leave compliance burdens on private actors. Governor Newsom’s decision will signal whether California prefers symbolic disclosure or practical reform.
Sources:
calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org, ourweekly.com, oag.ca.gov, theguardian.com
