Executive Summary
- What’s new: Democrats flipped five AG offices (Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas) and are set to hold 29 of 51 AG offices in 2027. Thirteen states will seat a new AG in January.
- Why it matters: New AGs can reset an office’s enforcement priorities, staffing and multistate alliances. Companies could face a heightened risk of multistate investigations, especially in antitrust, pricing and consumer protection matters.
- What to do next: Companies should consider reassessing pending matters in transition states, monitoring 30-day audit and 100-day rulemaking commitments, and ensuring their internal practices are aligned with AGs’ public statements about pricing, privacy and consumer protections.
__________
The Election: Five Flips and 13 New Attorneys General
Democrats gained five attorney general (AG) offices and are set to hold 29 of them in 2027. For companies, however, the more significant story may be the newcomers: Thirteen states will seat a new AG in January, and new AGs can reset an office’s enforcement priorities, staffing and multistate alliances even when the seat stays with the same party.
Party switches. Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio and Texas are moving from Republican to Democratic AGs, in several cases for the first time in more than a decade. Texas and Georgia had been among the most active Republican offices, so these changes could be felt well beyond their borders.
Same-party newcomers. Eight other states will also seat new AGs: Democrats Jena Griswold (Colorado), Eli Savit (Michigan), Nicole Cannizzaro (Nevada) and Kim Ahern (Rhode Island), and Republicans Katherine Robertson (Alabama), Jon Echols (Oklahoma), David Stumbo (South Carolina) and Lance Russell (South Dakota). Most of them appear to signal continuity with their predecessors, and several, particularly in Michigan, Nevada and Rhode Island, have suggested possible expansion into pricing, AI and technology enforcement.
Across both groups, the incoming AGs campaigned on affordability, competition and consumer protection. Their agendas suggest sustained or expanded scrutiny in the areas discussed below.
Algorithmic and Surveillance Pricing: An Emerging Shared AG Priority
Technology-enabled pricing appears to be moving toward the center of incoming AGs’ agendas, building on the surveillance pricing laws already enacted in New York, Maryland and New Jersey and the New York AG’s 2026 investigation of a grocery delivery service. Two themes stand out. The first is algorithmic price-fixing: Incoming AGs in Texas, Georgia and Rhode Island campaigned against rent-setting and price-fixing through shared software, with the Texas AG-elect endorsing litigation and potential legislation. The second is individualized or “surveillance” pricing: Incoming AGs in Michigan, Nevada and Kansas targeted prices set using consumers’ personal data or purchase history, along with surge pricing and AI-driven price gouging.
Several of these commitments come with near-term deadlines. The Texas AG-elect has promised a first-month audit of the state’s consumer protection and competition laws focused on algorithmic pricing and technologies that can “warp markets,” and Michigan’s AG-elect plans to use rulemaking authority under the state Consumer Protection Act within his first 100 days to address AI-driven pricing and surveillance pricing. Other incoming AGs have signaled legislative proposals on consumer-data guardrails and data brokers.
These priorities are not purely partisan. A bipartisan coalition of AGs recently urged the Federal Trade Commission to issue a rule defining what personalized-pricing conduct violates existing law, and California has announced major investigative sweeps. AGs are also relying on existing antidiscrimination, privacy and consumer protection laws, not only new surveillance pricing statutes, to scrutinize how personal data is used to set individualized prices.
Antitrust: Continued Independent State Enforcement
Incoming AGs have signaled that states may continue to proceed without federal co-enforcement, as they did in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster litigation and the Nexstar-Tegna merger challenge, and that this trend could intensify. Campaign platforms point to three areas of focus:
- First, broad consolidation and price-fixing: AGs-elect in Texas, Georgia and Ohio, among others, pledged to use state and federal antitrust law against market consolidation, predatory pricing and “price-fixing monopolies,” and Texas may continue its competition enforcement against major technology companies.
- Second, health care: Incoming AGs in Rhode Island and Colorado identified hospital and health care mergers, bid-rigging and monopoly-producing deals as targets, and Florida is pursuing price-fixing and restraint-of-trade claims against pharmacy benefit managers.
- Third, agriculture and local service markets: Incoming AGs in Georgia and Iowa flagged consolidation by agricultural processors and input suppliers, as well as private equity roll-ups in markets such as dental practices.
Multistate Coalition Impacts of the Five Flips
The five flips remove those offices from the Republican multistate bloc, but they may not all become reliable members of Democratic coalitions. Texas and Georgia had been among the most active Republican offices, and Texas in particular was a hub for conservative multistate litigation, filing more than 100 suits against the Biden administration. Texas may now join Democratic-led coalitions on consumer protection, antitrust and challenges to federal action, while Georgia’s incoming AG has said she would join such efforts selectively, depending on whether they help Georgians. Ohio and Kansas are likely to step back from national Republican-led litigation and favor Democratic or bipartisan coalitions grounded in state interests. Iowa’s incoming AG, meanwhile, has pledged to focus on issues directly affecting Iowans rather than on national political litigation.
The practical result could be that companies face new or expanded Democratic-led investigations in states that were recently aligned with Republican-led efforts, especially in antitrust and consumer protection matters, where bipartisan coalitions are already common.
Next Steps
New AGs often move quickly to set the tone for their tenure by reorganizing enforcement divisions, creating new units, issuing rules or guidance and pursuing high-profile matters. Companies should consider the following steps:
- Reassessing pending matters. Companies with open investigations, CIDs or settlement negotiations in transition states should consider whether the transition window is the right moment to seek resolution or reset the conversation with new leadership, as senior staff may depart with outgoing AGs.
- Monitoring early-term commitments. Companies will want to track 30-day audit and 100-day rulemaking commitments, as well as budget and staffing requests that may shape 2027 enforcement.
- Aligning public statements with practice. Legal, product and communications teams can review AGs’ public statements about pricing, privacy and consumer protections to ensure consistency with how their companies’ products actually work, since AGs frequently shape the narrative publicly before filing litigation.
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.