Newsom signs law forcing major companies to search slavery-era records and disclose findings

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Oct. 2, 2026 — California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been positioning himself for a presidential bid in 2028, has signed a law compelling certain large businesses operating in the state to investigate their historical connections to slavery and submit sworn findings for publication in a government database.

Assembly Bill 2599, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, turns a priority of California’s reparations movement into a mandatory corporate reporting requirement. Newsom signed the measure Sept. 30.

The Democrat governor also made the signing part of the opening of his podcast featuring Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative. In the segment, Newsom described the required historical searches and emphasized that the findings would become public.

“Accountability, as Bryan said, starts with truth,” Newsom said.

The law applies to businesses with more than $100 million in annual worldwide gross receipts that existed, or had a predecessor that existed, on or before Dec. 31, 1964.

Covered businesses must search records held by themselves and related entities for evidence of transactions involving enslaved people. Those include purchases, sales, leases, insurance, loans, collateral arrangements, and other participation in slaveholding or the slave trade.

Companies must submit an affidavit under penalty of perjury verifying their search, identifying enslaved people and slaveholders found in the records, and supplying relevant documentation. Specified records dating from 1849 forward must be included to the extent applicable.

California’s Civil Rights Department must publish the disclosures on a public digital platform. Implementation depends on a future legislative appropriation. For businesses already operating in California as of Jan. 1, 2028, the filing deadline is Jan. 15, 2029, or Jan. 15 of the year following development of the platform, whichever comes later.

The law creates a mandate whose implementation still requires funding, and it reaches qualifying companies headquartered elsewhere that do business in California.

The Democrats want to give reparations advocates more help as they seek connections between present corporate wealth and the slave era. Agriculture, banking, insurance, and finance to be among the industries affected by what is believed to be the first requirement of its kind in the nation.

The requirement carries compliance costs: Businesses may need to examine old archives, follow predecessor-company histories, and certify that they exercised due diligence. Several insurers opposed the legislation, arguing they had already disclosed historical slavery connections under California’s narrower, insurance-specific law enacted in 2000.

The compulsory disclosures also present a potential constitutional question concerning the limits of government-mandated speech.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the US Supreme Court in 2018 rejected California disclosure requirements imposed on pregnancy centers. The decision recognized constitutional limits on compelled speech and on disclosure mandates that are unjustified or excessively burdensome.

That ruling was narrowly crafted, however. A challenge to AB 2599 would have to address the distinction between government-required historical business reporting and the notices at issue in that case. Whether California’s new mandate crosses a constitutional line remains an open question.

The law’s clearest potential constitutional vulnerability is compelled speech under the First Amendment: Can California actually force businesses to investigate and publicly report historical slavery ties as part of its reparations agenda? The  2018 NIFLA v. Becerra decision, which rejected California disclosure mandates that exceeded constitutional limits. The state would likely argue that AB 2599 requires factual business reporting, permissible under the more lenient standard governing certain commercial disclosures.

A court would need to assess both the reporting burden, including historical searches and sworn affidavits, and whether the mandate requires factual disclosure or compelled participation in a contested political message. Its reach beyond California could generate additional objections, while the requirement for future funding may delay litigation. A challenge is possible, but neither a lawsuit nor the law’s invalidation is a certainty.

AB 2599 doesn’t demand reparations. Its immediate mechanism is a compulsory search, sworn reporting, and public disclosure. Reparations will be the next step.