AB 1990 joins a chorus of anticompetitive state bills that seek to keep compounded GLP-1s from reaching American patients. This bill would drive up costs and undermine Californians’ relationships with their healthcare providers while benefiting the largest pharmaceutical companies.
NetChoice Letter of Opposition to CA AB 1990, A Bill Restricting Patient Access to Compounded GLP-1s
May 8, 2026
California Assembly Appropriations Committee
Chair Wicks, Vice Chair Hoover and Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
I write today in opposition to AB 1990, a bill that mirrors legislation offered around the country this session which has been championed by large pharmaceutical companies. These companies have seen in compounder healthcare offerings an existential threat to their profit margin. While one can appreciate their desire to make a significant amount of money, it is not a compelling reason to have the government intervene and prevent the affordability and accessibility of life-saving medication to those who need it. The state of California should not act as a barrier to care and certainly not on behalf of major incumbents looking to shield themselves from competition.
NetChoice is a trade association of leading internet businesses that promotes the value, convenience and choice that internet business models provide to American consumers. Our mission is to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.
This model, as introduced, has not been adopted in any of the state houses where it has been adopted. Indiana, home of Eli Lilly and Company, did pass legislation, but it was significantly amended to bring state law in line with existing federal standards. If California feels as though the existing state oversight framework does need to be updated, this would be a far more judicious path than passing regulations that would shut off Californians’ affordable access to GLP-1s.
The Legislation is Inherently Anti-Competitive
AB 1990 does not serve the interests of California consumers and patients. Compounding is a practice as old as pharmacy itself. It allows patients who are sensitive or allergic to specific ingredients to still access vital care. In the case of GLP-1s, it has also dramatically increased access to a medication with wide-ranging health benefits. This is largely due to the fact that compounded versions of GLP-1s dramatically reduce the cost associated with those drugs. Can anyone really argue that legislation which raises prices and limits access helps anyone other than the largest pharmaceutical companies? California’s government should enthusiastically encourage alternative business models that drive down healthcare costs, not seek to crush them.
A Solution Without a Problem
Californians currently access brand name and compounded GLP-1s safely, and the California Board of Pharmacy, state law and federal law already provide significant regulation of this space. The “problem” is one generated through displays of rhetoric, not data.
Indeed, the fact that the bill only seeks to regulate compounded GLP-1s and not compounded medications generally gives the entire game away. AB 1990’s safety justification is based on the compounded nature of certain GLP-1s, yet it isn’t interested in a single other compounded substance. This tells you what you need to know: compounded medications, including GLP-1s, are perfectly safe, and there is no reason for the state to move forward with a de facto ban.
Of course, this does not mean that there will never be a bad actor in the compounding space. In those instances, regulators and law enforcement should hold them accountable and protect patients. If there are specific loopholes that need to be closed in order to bring California law into harmony with federal law, then such a legislative path should be pursued. AB 1990 represents something altogether different: the attempt to close off access to compounded GLP-1s.
Conclusion
Quality, safety and choice can all be promoted at the same time. AB 1990 does not do this. NetChoice strongly discourages the passage of the legislation, as it would harm the communities the bill is supposed to protect. While certainly unintentional, the legislation only guards the largest pharmaceutical companies from meaningful competition. As ever, we offer ourselves as a resource to discuss any of these issues with you in further detail, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide the committee with our thoughts on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Zachary Lilly
Director of State and Federal Affairs
NetChoice (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.)
NetChoice is a trade association that works to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.