Every major organization opposing California's anti-self-preferencing law is funded by the five companies the law would reform: Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. This site documents the myths they're spreading, who's paying them to spread them, and what the evidence actually shows.
See the MythsThe same talking points appear in every opposition letter — NetChoice, Google, Chamber of Progress, CalChamber, Bay Area Council, ICLE. That's not independent analysis. That's a messaging operation.
Every argument they're making — and what the evidence actually shows.
Every organization with a HIGH conflict-of-interest rating receives confirmed funding from the platforms SB 1074 would regulate. This is not coincidence. This is how influence works.
The opposition includes a letter signed by more than 20 organizations under the name "California Antitrust Coalition." There is no such registered entity. The California Antitrust Coalition has no registration with the California Secretary of State, no IRS EIN, no disclosed membership, no disclosed funders, and no legal accountability.
An unregistered, unaccountable coalition signed an opposition letter to antitrust legislation. The letter opposing a law designed to require transparency from powerful platforms was itself filed without any transparency about who organized it, who funded it, or who made the decision to sign.
The letter was organized by the Bay Area Council — which receives funding from Google, Amazon, Meta, and the other covered platforms — and co-coordinated with CalChamber, whose board includes a Google executive.
Four organizations appear in Amazon's payment records, Apple's membership disclosures, Google's contribution lists, and Meta's disclosed payments — independently and simultaneously. Each company filed its disclosure separately. The convergence is not a coincidence.
| Organization | Amazon | Apple | Meta | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Silicon Valley Leadership Group | ||||
| CCIA | ||||
| SIIA | ||||
| TechNet |
Sources: Amazon 2022/23 Public Policy Office disclosed payments (organizations receiving $10,000+); Apple 2024 Trade Organization Disclosures; Google 2020–2025 U.S. Government Affairs & Public Policy transparency pages; Meta 2024 U.S. Trade and Policy Group Disclosures.
After exhaustive review, 13 of 32 coalition letter signatories had no identified financial ties to any covered platform: Acclamation Insurance Management Services, Allied Managed Care, California Automotive Business Coalition, CALInnovates, Family Business Association of California, Flasher Barricade Association, Yuba-Sutter Chamber, California Apartment Association, California Business Properties Association, NAMIC, California Broadcasters Association, EcomBack, and Personal Insurance Federation of California.
Two worth noting: CALInnovates appears primarily funded by AT&T — telecom interests, not platform interests. The California Broadcasters Association has an adversarial relationship with Google, having lobbied to require Google to pay news outlets for content. It is the one coalition signatory that may genuinely oppose SB 1074 on its merits rather than as a platform proxy.
How We Defined "Confirmed"
"Confirmed" means the organization was identified by name in at least one of: Amazon's 2022/23 Public Policy Office disclosed payments (organizations receiving $10,000+); Apple's 2024 Trade Organization Disclosures; Google's 2020–2025 U.S. Government Affairs & Public Policy transparency pages; Meta's 2024 U.S. Trade and Policy Group Disclosures; or IRS Form 990 filings. These lists predate the 2026 opposition letters and are not exhaustive. Google discloses only "most substantial" contributions; Amazon's threshold is $10,000+; Apple's list is membership disclosure, not payment disclosure. "Not found" means no evidence was identified in these specific documents — not proof of no funding relationship. Signatory matching was conducted via programmatic text extraction and string matching, not visual scanning. Methodology is auditable on request.
Every opposition letter, in full. Read what they said. Then read who paid them to say it.
"SB 1074 abandons consumer welfare and will destroy popular free services."
"The bill breaks integrated products and contradicts the CLRC's recommendations."
"California should learn from Europe's failed DMA experiment."
"Self-preferencing is generally efficient and the bill risks overenforcement."
"20+ organizations oppose this threat to California's innovation economy."
"The bill will cost $286M in tax revenue and chill AI innovation. (Opposition messaging inflates this to $380M by adding projected enforcement costs.)"
"SB 1074 is a more extreme version of failed federal bills that California leaders opposed."
"The BASED Act could cost California hundreds of millions in annual tax revenue due to impacts on covered firms' equity valuations and capital gains."
"There is no market failure to which this proposal is responding. California's digital markets continue to flourish."
"The BASED Act is the third installment in a franchise that long ago lost the plot — after the DMA and AICOA both failed."