Executive Summary
- What’s new: State attorneys general are expanding antitrust and consumer protection enforcement to fill perceived gaps left by reduced federal oversight. States are creating new enforcement units, challenging mergers independently of federal regulators, prevailing in marquee litigation and enacting new laws to target pricing.
- Why it matters: Companies involved in M&A or consumer-facing pricing now face a multifront enforcement landscape — state-level challenges may proceed even after federal clearance.
- What to do next: Companies can incorporate state AG engagement into merger planning from the earliest stages, review pricing practices for compliance with emerging state surveillance pricing laws and monitor the growing patchwork of state enforcement authorities.
__________
Increased State AG Enforcement Actions and Recent Wins
The National Association of Attorneys General antitrust litigation database shows an increase in state-initiated enforcement actions in 2026, spanning sectors including technology, healthcare and consumer goods. State AGs have already initiated seven antitrust actions in 2026 — surpassing total filings in each of the prior two years.
State AGs have secured notable victories in antitrust and consumer protection litigation. For example, state attorneys general successfully continued their monopolization case against Live Nation/Ticketmaster after the federal government, which had been a co-plaintiff, settled with the company. States proceeded independently in a bipartisan coalition of more than 30 AGs, signaling their readiness to pursue more aggressive remedies than those sought by federal enforcers.
State AGs have also secured substantial settlements in cases involving alleged price-fixing, no-poach agreements and deceptive pricing practices. Several pricing and consumer tactics have been especially targeted by state AGs, including algorithmic and surveillance pricing, junk fees and drip pricing, retail pricing accuracy and negative option marketing.
States often collaborate to bring these actions. For example, in June 2026, a coalition of 18 AGs settled a deceptive advertising practices case with GS Labs, LLC, requiring GS Labs to pay up to $3.63 million in consumer restitution and $1.25 million in costs and fees to the states. In another recent case, over 30 states joined together in a nationwide antitrust action against drug companies, alleging that price-fixing schemes led to inflated costs for common medications. And in February 2026, 42 states and territories filed a new lawsuit against Novartis. These bipartisan coalitions underscore that state AGs will pursue antitrust enforcement even if federal regulators do not participate.
Merger Challenges Independent of Federal Regulators
One of the most striking developments in the emerging multifront enforcement landscape is state AGs’ willingness to challenge mergers independently even after federal regulators have approved a transaction. So far in July 2026, 12 states sued to block Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery even though the federal government declined to challenge the transaction. Earlier in 2026, a coalition of eight states sued to block the Nexstar-Tegna merger after federal regulators approved the acquisition, showing that federal clearance alone no longer guarantees closing. Five more states joined this lawsuit in May 2026, totaling 13 bipartisan state AG plaintiffs bringing the case.
States are also angling for earlier visibility into transactions through state-level premerger notification requirements. California, Washington and Colorado have adopted such requirements, and New York, Hawaii, Indiana, West Virginia and the District of Columbia are considering similar laws. These laws generally require a company that submits a Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act filing to federal regulators to also provide that filing to the AG, if the company has qualifying ties to the state that has enacted such a statute.
The Washington AG recently demonstrated a willingness to use these expanded powers to challenge mergers when he filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the Kroger and Albertsons merger. The court enjoined the merger under state law, and Kroger and Albertsons later terminated their merger.
Companies contemplating a merger should anticipate that state AG review may proceed on a parallel track with federal review, and that state enforcers may reach different conclusions about competitive effects. Planning for state engagement from the outset — including proactive outreach to relevant state AGs — is becoming a best practice.
New Enforcement Authorities: Surveillance Pricing and Consumer Protection
States are also enacting new laws that grant their AGs novel enforcement tools, particularly in the area of consumer pricing. A growing number of states have implemented or proposed legislation targeting “surveillance pricing” — the practice of using consumer data, algorithms or AI to set individualized prices. These laws create new compliance obligations for businesses and empower state AGs to investigate and penalize companies that use algorithmic pricing in ways deemed harmful to consumers. The resulting patchwork of state laws creates compliance challenges for national businesses, which must navigate varying definitions, disclosure requirements and enforcement standards across jurisdictions.
In November 2025, New York enacted the first act concerning such “surveillance” pricing, which requires companies that set prices using an algorithm based on consumers’ personal data to disclose this practice. In January 2026, the New York AG investigated a grocery delivery service’s use of algorithmic pricing, demanding detailed information about the company’s price-setting tactics. Since then, Maryland has enacted a statute prohibiting food retailers and third-party delivery services from using surveillance pricing to set higher prices for consumers using customers’ personal data.
New Jersey has also created a new Antitrust Litigation and Competition Enforcement Section, reflecting the institutional investment states are making to build dedicated antitrust capacity. Several other states have similarly bolstered their antitrust divisions in response to perceived gaps in federal enforcement. A coalition of state AGs publicly warned that reduced federal oversight creates enforcement gaps that states intend to fill: During a joint press conference in May 2026, AGs from Washington, California, Nevada, New York and Oregon publicly announced this increased enforcement by state AGs.
Next Steps
The expanded role of state attorneys general in antitrust and consumer protection enforcement may represent a structural shift in the enforcement landscape. Companies should consider the following steps:
- Planning for state AG engagement in mergers. Companies can incorporate state AG engagement into deal timelines and strategy from the earliest stages. Federal approval alone does not eliminate state-level risk.
- Reviewing pricing compliance. Companies can review the use of algorithms, AI and consumer data in pricing decisions for compliance with emerging state surveillance pricing laws.
- Monitoring evolving state enforcement. Companies will want to track the growing patchwork of state enforcement authorities, as enforcement priorities and legal standards may vary significantly by jurisdiction.
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.