Staff Reports
California lawmakers have just sent Governor Gavin Newsom a new headache wrapped in good intentions. The Legislature passed AB 2599 — the so‑called Truth and Disclosure Act — and now it sits on the governor’s desk. If signed, big companies doing business in California will face a new, costly hunt through corporate gravesites stretching back to the 1800s.
What AB 2599 would require
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan’s bill targets any company with more than $100 million in worldwide receipts that existed, or whose predecessor existed, before the end of 1964. Those firms would have to file an affidavit under penalty of perjury saying they searched records for any ties to chattel slavery — sales, loans, insurance, or other services — and submit an index and applicable documents to a public state database run by the California Civil Rights Department. The law even contemplates digging into records “from 1849 forward,” and it conditions the rollout on a future legislative appropriation, meaning the real timetable depends on more Sacramento paperwork.
Why businesses should be alarmed
This is less about truth‑seeking and more about turning corporate compliance shops into amateur historians — under threat of perjury. Large, multinational firms have messy family trees of mergers, subsidiaries and rebranded predecessors. Asking them to trace legal liability and produce records from 170 years ago is costly, uncertain and likely impossible in many cases. Add public posting of whatever turns up, and you have a recipe for reputational firestorms and investor questions, even where no modern actor did anything wrong.
Legal risks, costs and unintended consequences
Expect litigation. Mandating sworn affidavits raises clear perjury exposure and invites legal fights over the scope of searches, attorney‑client privilege, trade secrets and constitutional challenges. The bill also forces companies that bid for state contracts to certify compliance — another lever that makes California the bossiest customer. All this when the state already faces budget shortfalls and companies are fleeing for lower taxes and simpler rules. It’s hard to sell California as “business friendly” when the state demands you moonlight as a detective for 19th‑century paperwork.
What happens next — and what should Gov. Newsom do
The near‑term drama is simple: Governor Newsom can sign or veto. If he signs, the implementation clock still depends on legislative funding, and that’s when the real headaches for companies and the courts will begin. Conservatives should call this what it is — virtue signaling with a compliance bill attached. A sane response from the governor would be to veto or demand clear limits, timelines and protections for privilege and trade secrets. Otherwise California will keep piling on reasons why headquarters and talented workers leave — and that will be the true cost of this historical crusade.
