New CA Anti-Big Tech Legislation is a Solution to a State Manufactured Problem

California Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) is pushing a ridiculous bill that purports to blame Big Tech for the affordability crisis in San Francisco.

Not only does this not deal with San Francisco’s inability to build housing – largely because of union influence – it also fails to take into account that this looks like a pretty stereotypical crony capitalist move that seems designed to benefit a relatively important Wiener donor.

Against the sleek backdrop of Y Combinator’s San Francisco headquarters this week, Sen. Wiener, YC CEO Garry Tan, and a curated group of startup founders unveiled a legislative package they claim will “restore the open web.”

SB 1074 (the BASED Act), authored by Wiener, would prohibit digital platforms worth $1 trillion or more from “self-preferencing” their own products in search results and app stores. Its companion, AB 1776 (the COMPETE Act), authored by Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), amends California’s Cartwright Act (California’s primary antitrust law,) to allow the state to sue a single company for monopolistic behavior without requiring a conspiracy.

Both pieces of legislation appear squarely focused on Apple, which has famously dueled with at least one Y Combinator company—Coinbase—over app store access. Years back, Apple also tangled with tech-in-transportation behemoth Uber under former CEO Travis Kalanick when the company’s app failed to meet Apple’s privacy and security standards (that situation has long since been resolved).

Sen. Wiener confirmed during a panel discussion Q&A that by 2030, the threshold would extend to privately held companies with that market cap, a detail that drew little scrutiny but is important for how this develops over the long term.

Under the guise of “fair play” rhetoric, the speakers aimed for something much more ambitious and rather absurd: blaming California’s affordability crisis on the very companies that have kept the state’s tax revenue high for decades.

Good example of Scott Wiener's corruption racket in full open view.

Wiener carries legislation to benefit Garry Tan. Tan super PAC then throws down five figures to help elect Wiener. https://t.co/n5cNKWmzZi

— SF Progressives (@SFProgressives) March 21, 2026

The “Toll Road” Fallacy

Teri Olle, Vice President of Economic Security California Action framed Big Tech as a toll collector that starts its own trucking company and gives itself all the green lights. Senator Wiener supplied the capstone: without this legislation, he warned, AI-era wealth will simply “get sucked into the largest tech companies” rather than lowering costs for California residents.

The issue with that theory is that technology is usually deflationary. The logistics infrastructure built by companies like Amazon is a key reason goods are available at competitive prices and helps consumers save money. Blaming a search algorithm for San Francisco’s high cost of living is not just a stretch; it’s a distraction from the housing shortage, permitting failures, and energy policy decisions made in Sacramento.

The “DMV for Apps” Irony

Garry Tan compared Apple’s App Store to “the worst DMV in the world.” The founders who followed made it concrete: Shane Gil of Alt Store had to launch in Europe because US law offered no way to compete directly with Apple. Eric Migicovsky of Beeper argued Apple intentionally breaks third-party smartwatch features to force Apple Watch purchases. Peter Kro of Blue held up a physical hardware dongle that his company built solely because Apple blocks software-level phone access. It is true that these are legitimate grievances. However, they are not evidence that California’s affordability crisis traces to app store fees.

The irony of delivering the “DMV” line in San Francisco was lost on the room. Its residents deal with the real Division of Motor Vehicles, the actual California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and a housing permitting process that makes any app store seem frictionless. Meanwhile, AB 1776’s expansion of the Cartwright Act liability to single-firm conduct essentially creates a “success tax” on acquisitions, the main exit and reward structure for the startup ecosystem that Y Combinator profits from. The organization is lobbying to make it harder for the very exits that fund its portfolio.

Importing Stagnation

During the press conference, Europe was cited as a model for the legislation no less than six times. Olle invoked the EU’s $2.5 billion fine against Google as a California template. Gil credited the EU’s Digital Markets Act as the only reason his company exists. Migicovsky noted that DMA-mandated interoperability allows his watch features to work in Europe but not in the US. Marvin von Hagen argued that users in Berlin and Milan currently have more digital choice than those in the Bay Area.

What none of them addressed was the 25-year track record associated with that model. Europe has produced reams of pro-competition regulation, yet it has produced zero globally dominant tech platforms or AI giants. Applying the DMA framework to California means importing a proven record of regulatory activity without competitive output, and risking the state’s standing as a place that has actually produced the companies everyone else is trying to regulate, which could hasten those companies’ exit to states with a much friendlier regulatory environment.

The Real Gatekeepers

Wiener named Apple, Google, Amazon, and Meta as the targets. The list is not wrong as a description of market power. It is wrong as a diagnosis of California’s affordability. The real gatekeepers are the policy choices that have produced a massive housing shortage, an energy grid whose rate hikes predate the AI data center boom, the highest gas taxes in the country, and a regulatory climate driving residents out of the state. California lost a congressional seat following the 2020 census, and estimates show it could lose another 4-5 following the 2030 census.

Sacramento has a genuine affordability crisis. The BASED Act and the COMPETE Act do not solve it. They redirect public frustration from the policy failures that created it toward an industry that remains one of the few still generating substantial tax revenue and high-paying jobs for the state. That may be shrewd politics. It is not a serious answer to the problem Wiener, Tan, and Olle spent an hour describing.

Wiener and YC have a lengthier political history than many San Franciscans may realize. Campaign finance records show that in just 2023 alone, YC gave a total of close to $15,000 to Wiener’s campaign, about 1 percent of his total funding that cycle. Tan is a major donor to the super PAC now sending out attack mailers against Wiener’s congressional rival Saikat Chakrabarti; the event with Wiener occurred just weeks after news broke of his $25,000 contribution to the Wiener-aligned Abundant Future PAC.

Yet the Wiener-YC relationship may not endure. Not only would Wiener’s legislation begin to hit private-held companies like YC’s investees in just four years, speakers at the event pointed to the EU’s Digital Markets Act as something California should copy. But the EU DMA framework has been in place during a time when the EU has failed to produce a single globally-dominant tech platform—a result YC cannot possibly want for its companies.