California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2599, the Truth in Disclosure Act, into law on September 30 [1]. The legislation requires large companies that operated before 1965 to search their records for ties to slavery dating back to 1849 and make their findings public [1]. According to Governor Newsom, the act targets "insurance policies on enslaved people" and instances where "human beings [were] used as collateral, quite literally as collateral for loans" [1].
The law represents a significant regulatory shift requiring companies to conduct historical audits and disclose findings under penalty of perjury [1]. However, the measure has drawn criticism from commentators who question its practical utility and implementation. Opinion contributor Eli Steele argues that the investigation aims to "unearth confessions that can be commodified as grievances" rather than serve genuine historical discovery purposes, noting that professional historians already document such history [1]. Steele further contends that the law reflects what he characterizes as "White guilt" being leveraged for political purposes, suggesting the governor signed the act to avoid accusations of protecting companies with slavery ties [1].
The implementation of AB 2599 will require affected corporations to conduct extensive historical record reviews spanning over 170 years, creating potential compliance costs and operational burdens [1]. The disclosure requirement aims to bring transparency to corporate historical involvement in slavery, though critics question whether this approach effectively addresses contemporary economic disparities or educational outcomes [1].
CONCLUSION
AB 2599 establishes a novel corporate disclosure requirement regarding historical slavery ties, creating compliance obligations for large companies but generating debate over its practical effectiveness and underlying motivations. The law's market impact remains uncertain, though it may impose material compliance costs on affected corporations and potentially influence corporate governance and historical accountability practices.