New California laws arise from latest legislative skirmishes in endless ‘tort wars’

The state Capitol is an arena where lobbyists for thousands of interest groups battle over issues that mostly involve money — very often big money. The Legislature and the governor can, and often do, write into law new provisions that financially benefit one interest or are costly for another.

One of the longest-running conflicts, dubbed “tort wars,” pits lawyers who file personal injury lawsuits and their allies against business interests and their insurers.

They fight over laws that specify which actions cause damages, known as “torts,” which can be the subject of liability lawsuits and what compensation can be collected if such cases prevail.

The stakes can be immense, involving many billions of dollars, so for tort warriors it’s a perpetual game of defining new, legally actionable acts; expanding or shrinking those already on the books, or devising tactics to thwart those employed by the other side.

The dynamics of tort politics were demonstrated one night in September 1987, as that year’s legislative session was nearing adjournment.

Veteran lobbyists for major tort war interests had been exploring a potential multi-point deal to resolve some long-simmering issues with key legislators behind closed doors. The negotiators took a break for dinner and drinks at what was then Sacramento’s famous political watering hole, Frank Fat’s restaurant.

Spontaneously, as the liquor flowed and food was consumed, negotiations restarted right there, as Willie Brown, then the much-celebrated speaker of the state Assembly, bounced from table to table.

The result was the infamous “napkin deal” that gave everyone involved at least part of what they wanted. It was jotted down on a napkin, quickly drafted into legislation and passed with no public input.

One provision — which years later haunted Brown and other politicians — protected the tobacco industry from lawsuits by disease-stricken former smokers. (Footnote: I and the late Jay Michael, a lobbyist for medical interests who was one of the participants, co-wrote a book about lobbying that includes a detailed account of how the napkin deal came about.)

This brief history of tort wars sets the stage for what has been happening recently, including in the just-concluded 2026 legislative session.

Two years ago, the business side scored a significant victory with passage of two bills that narrowed the scope of the Private Attorneys General Act, which allows workers to sue their employers in the name of the state for alleged violations of workplace laws.

Employer groups had qualified a ballot measure to overhaul PAGA, as the law is known, which prodded lawyers and other rival interests to agree to a compromise in return for dropping the measure.

The 2026 session, as usual, featured a couple of other tort-related measures.

One, Assembly Bill 1776, is a significant expansion of the Cartwright Act, California’s long-standing law prohibiting monopolistic arrangements among businesses.

The state’s Law Revision Commission proposed extending it to actions by a single corporation that had monopolistic effects and allowing private parties to file suits under the revised law.

Business interests opposed the entire concept, saying it was unneeded, and they particularly disliked the private right of action. Before the bill received final approval that part was stricken, limiting enforcement to the attorney general or a local prosecutor.

The second measure, Senate Bill 690, arose out of an American Bar Association publication describing how some California attorneys were using, or misusing, California’s law against secret wiretaps to demand payment from corporations for using website tracking software to gather information.

Business groups depicted the practice as extortion, and SB 690 was drafted and enacted to make using the wiretap law this way much more difficult.

This year’s legislative session is over, but tort warriors already are gearing up for the next one.