---
title: California Lawmakers Pass a Bill Making Large Companies Swear Whether They Profited From Slavery
description: California's Legislature passed AB 2599, which would make large companies swear whether they profited from slavery and post it to a public database.
author: Darie Nani (Editor-in-Chief)
updated: 2026-08-27T15:17:50.269Z
canonical: https://www.sovereignmagazine.com/article/california-lawmakers-pass-a-bill-making-large-companies-swear-whether-they-profited-from-slavery
categories: Politics
content_type: Analysis
region: California
publication: Sovereign Magazine
schema_type: Article
---

The California Legislature has passed a bill that would require the state's largest companies to state under oath whether they profited from slavery, and to put that answer where anyone can look it up. The state Senate approved AB 2599, the Truth in Disclosure Act, on August 27, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom. The Assembly cleared it in May. It is not yet law. It takes effect only if Newsom signs it.

The measure would reach corporations that do business in California, take in more than $100 million in worldwide gross receipts a year, and existed on or before December 31, 1964, or descend from a predecessor company of that era. Under [the bill's text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2599), those companies would file sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, saying whether they or their predecessors bought, sold, or insured enslaved people, or provided services tied to slavery-era transactions, going back to 1849. The affidavits would come due around January 15, 2029. The California Civil Rights Department would build a publicly searchable database, targeted for roughly January 2028 and contingent on funding. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Ladera Heights Democrat, wrote the bill. "Californians deserve to know which companies built their wealth on the backs of enslaved people, and they deserve that truth under oath," Bryan says.

## No State Has Demanded This of Corporations Across the Board Before

Governments have asked companies this question before, but never a state, and never this broadly. Chicago required its city contractors to disclose slavery ties in a 2002 ordinance, and Los Angeles followed in 2003. California itself made insurers disclose slavery-era policies under SB 2199, signed in 2000. Each of those reached a slice of the corporate world: firms that wanted city contracts, or companies in a single regulated industry. The California slavery disclosure law would go wider, covering every corporation statewide above the revenue threshold, in any line of business. Where past disclosure was a condition of doing certain business or a rule for one sector, this would be a standing legal duty, sworn and searchable, for a whole class of large employers.

## Twenty Years of Disclosure Produced Apologies, Not Payments

After Chicago's ordinance took effect, JPMorgan Chase said in 2005 that two predecessor banks in Louisiana had accepted enslaved people as collateral on loans, and the bank set up a scholarship fund. Wachovia apologized the same year after its own review turned up predecessor ties. Both came in response to a city ordinance and litigation pressure, not a state mandate, and both produced acknowledgment and voluntary gestures rather than payments to descendants. Supporters of AB 2599 argue that a mandatory, uniform requirement produces a fuller public record than a patchwork of contractor rules and voluntary reviews.

## The Affidavits Would Establish Historical Fact, Not Legal Liability

The bill would establish historical fact, not legal fault. Its penalties attach to failing to file, or to filing a false affidavit, not to the slavery-era ties a company discloses. Legal scholars who study reparations litigation note that lawsuits seeking to make companies pay for historic slavery have generally failed in US courts on standing and statute-of-limitations grounds, and a disclosure requirement does not change that doctrine. It is also unclear how a modern company would quantify profits from transactions more than a century and a half old. Comparable regimes show the enforcement risk: legal analyses of the United Kingdom's Modern Slavery Act, which requires large firms to publish supply-chain transparency statements, have found high rates of non-compliance, and the government's power to seek an injunction against companies that ignore the duty has never been used. Whether California funds and enforces its database, and whether other states follow, are open questions the bill's passage does not answer.

## One Measure in a Longer Reparations Effort

AB 2599 sits inside a project California began six years ago. Governor Newsom signed AB 3121 in September 2020, creating a task force to study reparations for slavery and its legacy. That body delivered a report of roughly 1,100 pages in 2023, recommending among many things that the state hold corporations accountable for slavery-era profiteering; the [report](https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/report) is public. Donald K. Tamaki, a former member of the task force, says two chapters of it document how corporations built fortunes from enslaved labor, and that the Truth in Disclosure Act follows the task force's recommendations. By the count of its backers, AB 2599 would be the fifteenth reparations-related measure to advance since the report, after a 2024 formal state apology and a pair of 2025 bills. Its coalition includes the California Legislative Black Caucus, the Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, the Equal Justice Society, and the California Black Power Network. For now the bill waits on one signature, and Newsom has not said what he will do.

## FAQ

**Q: What is California's AB 2599, the Truth in Disclosure Act?**
It is a bill the California Legislature passed in August 2026 that would require large corporations doing business in the state to file sworn affidavits saying whether they or their predecessor companies profited from slavery, and to have those disclosures posted to a public database. It applies to companies with more than $100 million in annual worldwide gross receipts that existed on or before December 31, 1964, or trace to a predecessor from that era. It becomes law only if Governor Newsom signs it.

**Q: Does the law require companies to pay reparations?**
No. AB 2599 requires disclosure, not payment. Its penalties apply to companies that fail to file or that file false affidavits under penalty of perjury, not to the historical ties a company reports. Legal scholars note that reparations lawsuits against companies have generally failed in US courts on standing and statute-of-limitations grounds, and this bill does not change that.

**Q: Is California the first state to require corporate slavery disclosure?**
It would be the first state to require it of corporations generally. Chicago and Los Angeles required their city contractors to disclose slavery ties in the early 2000s, and California already required insurers to disclose slavery-era policies under a 2000 law. AB 2599 is broader, covering all large corporations statewide across every industry.

**Q: What happens to the disclosures once companies file them?**
The California Civil Rights Department would maintain a publicly searchable database of the affidavits, targeted for about January 2028 and dependent on funding. Companies would file their sworn statements by roughly January 15, 2029.

**Q: Has Governor Newsom signed AB 2599?**
Not as of this writing. The Legislature passed it and sent it to his desk on August 27, 2026. It awaits his signature and is not yet law.