California Becomes Latest State to Enact Broad ‘Mini-HSR’ Act
March 09, 2026California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 25 (SB 25), which will require certain deal parties who submit premerger filings to the US federal government under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Antitrust Improvements Act to share the HSR submission with the California attorney general (AG).
Unlike California’s existing premerger notification laws, which apply only to certain industries, SB 25 is industry agnostic.[1] When SB 25 becomes effective on January 1, 2027, California will join Colorado and Washington—and likely even more states considering similar legislation—as states with general “mini-HSR” acts.[2]
SIMILARITIES TO EXISTING ‘MINI-HSR’ ACTS IN COLORADO AND WASHINGTON
California, Colorado, and Washington State’s general “mini-HSR” acts are adopted from the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (UAPNA), a piece of model legislation published by the Uniform Law Commission, a nonprofit group, in 2024. Indeed, SB 25 is identical to Colorado and Washington’s statutes in most respects.
Under SB 25, a party to an HSR-reportable transaction must also notify the California AG if any of following circumstances are met:
- The party as its principal place of business in California.
- The party does not have its principal place of business in California, but generates in-state net annual sales of the goods or services involved in the transaction of at least 20% of the HSR Act’s size-of-transaction threshold. (The current HSR threshold is $133.9 million, meaning the California filing threshold in January 2027 will be $26.78 million, but this will change as the US Federal Trade Commission adjusts this HSR threshold annually every February).
Under the first trigger, while SB 25 does not define “principal place of business,” the comments to the UAPNA define the term as “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities.”[3] The first trigger requires a deal party to submit its HSR form plus all accompanying documentary materials.[4]
Under the second trigger, parties must assess in-state revenues “for goods or services involved in the transaction.” While SB 25 does not define this phrase, SB 25 looks to other UAPNA states for guidance,[5] and Washington has clarified that parties should look to product or service descriptions in the HSR form.[6] If this definition is used in California, this means that all of the target’s in-state goods and services being acquired through the deal are usually considered as “goods or services involved in the transaction,” while the buyer has more flexibility to determine which of its products and services qualify as being “involved in the transaction.”[7] The second trigger requires a deal party to submit only its HSR form initially, but the California AG may request the submission of the accompanying documentary materials.
SB 25 does not impose a waiting period that deal parties must observe before closing (but other state “mini-HSR” acts or the federal HSR Act may impose waiting periods).
KEY DIFFERENCES FROM EXISTING ‘MINI-HSR’ ACTS IN COLORADO AND WASHINGTON
SB 25 differs from the UAPNAs enacted in Colorado and Washington in several respects:
|
Provision |
California |
Colorado/Washington |
|
Filing Deadline |
Within one business day of filing to the federal antitrust agencies |
“Contemporaneously” with the HSR filing to the federal antitrust agencies |
|
Filing Fee |
First Trigger
Second Trigger
|
None |
|
Civil Penalty |
Up to $25,000 per day of noncompliance, after written notice and three-business-day cure period |
Up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance, provided AG follows procedural requirements, including due process |
Looking Ahead
Deal parties should expect more states to enact their own industry-agnostic “mini-HSR” acts. So far, Hawaii, Indiana, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have proposed laws modeled on the UAPNA. Further, the New York legislature is considering a “mini-HSR” act more expansive than the UAPNA that would require “any person conducting business” within New York—regardless of in-state revenues—to submit their HSR form and accompanying documentary materials to the New York AG.
As these industry agnostic “mini-HSR” acts become more common, deal parties should carefully consider how these laws affect deal timing and closing risk, how state confidentiality laws protect transaction-related information and materials, and how to account for these considerations in merger agreement negotiations.
Contacts
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following:
[1] California’s existing premerger notification laws are (1) the Health Care Quality and Affordability Act of 2023 (HCQAA), which applies only to certain deals in the healthcare industry, and (2) AB 853 from 2023, which applies only to certain deals involving retail grocery or retail drug stores.
[2] We previously explained the Colorado and Washington general “mini-HSR” acts in a prior LawFlash.
[3] UAPNA, at 4-5 (quoting Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010)).
[4] The documentary materials accompanying an HSR form include, for example, transaction-specific documents discussing topics related to competition or deal synergies, and transaction-related agreements.
[5] SB 25 requires a court interpreting its provisions to “consider the promotion of uniformity of the law among the jurisdictions that enact it.” Cal. SB 25, § 16786.
[6] Wash. Office of Att’y Gen., Premerger Notifications.
[7] This means it is possible for only one party to a transaction to have a filing obligation under SB 25, if that party (but not the other) has sufficient in-state revenues of the “goods or services involved in the transaction.” See Wash. Office of Att’y Gen., Premerger Notifications.