California Warns Foreign Bribery Can Still Lead to State Liability

California’s attorney general recently reminded businesses that regardless of what the Trump administration does, businesses can still be responsible for violations of state law. In a recently issued legal advisory, state Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that it was still illegal in California to make payments to foreign government officials to obtain or retain business in violation of the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and warned businesses of potential liability under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

In an executive order (EO) dated Feb. 10, 2025, President Trump effectively suspended federal enforcement of the FCPA for a period of at least 180 days while the U.S. attorney general conducts a review of guidelines and policies governing criminal FCPA investigations and enforcement actions. The EO further imposes a pause on any criminal FCPA actions by the federal government unless the U.S. attorney general determines that an exception should be made. Moreover, the EO further requires that any future criminal FCPA investigations or enforcement actions must be specifically authorized by the attorney general.

Attorney General Bonta’s alert emphasized the need for all businesses and individuals to continue complying with all applicable laws, including the FCPA, “regardless of the federal administration’s pronouncements.” Bonta further warned: “Paying bribes to foreign officials is not only unethical, it is also bad for business. Bribery erodes consumer confidence in the market and rewards corruption instead of competition.”

The UCL, codified at Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code section 17200, et seq., was intended to promote fair business competition and protect consumers, and prohibits unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices. Violations of state or federal laws may form the basis for a UCL claim, which can be brought by the state to seek injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties. (See, e.g., Rose v. Bank of America, N.A. 57 Cal.4th 390, 394 (2013); and Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (29 Cal.4th 1134, 1144.) In addition, the UCL affords private parties a right of action.

This notice is a good reminder that state attorneys general are going to continue to enforce state laws regardless of changes in federal priorities. Any company doing business in California that also does international business should have a robust compliance program in place that addresses, among other things, corruption and bribery risk, including under the FCPA. Brownstein has the experience and expertise to assist with both the compliance and potential litigation aspects of the UCL. Reach out to one of the authors with questions about navigating the FCPA and UCL in the current legal and policy landscape.

This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding the current status of FCPA enforcement. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.