WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 2599

Slavery: corporate disclosures.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mia Bonta and 13 co-sponsors

AB 2599 requires corporations to publicly disclose measures and risks related to slavery and forced labor in their supply chains, boosting transparency and due diligence.

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
#slavery #corporatedisclosures
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 2599

Bill Summary — AB 2599 (2025-2026) – California

1) Purpose and Intent

AB 2599 is a California bill focused on slavery-related disclosures by corporations. The primary goal appears to be increasing transparency around labor practices and potential modern slavery risks within corporate supply chains or operations. The exact statutory framing (definitions, scope, and specific disclosure requirements) is not included in the excerpt provided, but the title “Slavery: corporate disclosures” indicates a mandate for publicly reportable information by corporations, likely similar to other California disclosure regimes (e.g., labor, human rights, or greenhouse gas disclosures).

2) Key Provisions and Changes (What the bill would do)

  • Mandated Disclosures: The bill would require certain entities (likely corporations meeting size or revenue thresholds) to disclose information related to slavery and human trafficking risks in their operations and supply chains. This could include:
    • Measures to identify and assess risk of slavery or forced labor within suppliers and vendors.
    • Policies or codes of conduct addressing modern slavery.
    • Due diligence processes and steps taken to mitigate identified risks.
    • Remediation steps for workers affected by exploitation.
    • Public reporting, possibly in annual reports or a dedicated filing, with specifics on format and location (e.g., California Secretary of State or a state database, or an annual report filed with a state agency).
  • Scope and Definitions: Clarifications on what constitutes “slavery,” “forced labor,” and “supply chain” would be defined, along with which entities are subject to the disclosure requirement (likely larger corporations, affiliates, or businesses operating in California with certain revenue thresholds).
  • Enforcement and Penalties: The bill would set forth enforcement mechanisms and potential penalties for noncompliance, such as fines, corrective action orders, or other administrative remedies. Specific penalty amounts or schedules would be defined in the text.
  • Public Accessibility: Disclosures would be made available to the public, enhancing consumer and investor access to information about corporate labor practices.

3) Who or What Would Be Affected

  • Target Entities: Likely mid- to large-size corporations operating in California or with substantial California-based business activity, potentially including public companies and private entities meeting revenue or employment thresholds.
  • Stakeholders: Employees and workers within supply chains, labor-rights advocates, investors and lenders evaluating ESG risk, and the general public seeking transparency on labor practices.
  • State Agencies: A relevant California state agency (potentially California Secretary of State or another regulator) would administer the disclosure regime, collect reports, and enforce compliance.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Legislative Path: The bill has progressed through several stages:
    • Referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee (JUD) for initial consideration (March 9, 2026).
    • In committee, amendments were proposed; the committee reported the bill “amend, and do pass as amended,” and then re-referred to the Appropriations Committee (April 14-15, 2026).
    • The Assembly voted “Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations” (April 14, 2026) with a 9-3 vote.
    • The bill was later re-referred to the Appropriations Committee (April 20, 2026) for potential fiscal review.
  • Scheduling: A hearing had been set and canceled in March 2026 at the author’s request, indicating procedural adjustments during the bill’s progression.
  • Sponsorship: Primary sponsor includes Assemblymember Mia Bonta, with multiple co-sponsors from both Assembly and Senate, reflecting bipartisan or broad interest. Co-sponsors include Ash Kalra, Catherine Stefani, Damon Connolly, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Mike Gipson, Rick Zbur, Akilah Weber Pierson, Sade Elhawary, LaShae Sharp-Collins, Laura Richardson, Tina McKinnor, Corey Jackson, Isaac Bryan, among others.

5) Potential Impact and Context

  • Transparency Enhancement: If enacted, the bill would create a formal mechanism for reporting on slavery and human trafficking risks, potentially driving improvements in labor practices across supply chains.
  • Business Compliance Burden: Affected entities would bear additional reporting and due diligence obligations, along with potential costs for data collection, verification, and possible third-party audits.
  • Public and Investor Information: The disclosures would provide consumers, employees, and investors with more information about corporate labor standards and risk management related to modern slavery.

Note: For exact definitions, threshold criteria, disclosure specifics, and penalty provisions, refer to the bill’s full text and fiscal analysis.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.