State attorneys general could use more time when looking over mergers and acquisitions within the artificial intelligence industry, said Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Odette. Enforcement at the state level is limited with varying access to tools and information, but having more time to interview market participants and third parties would serve states well, Odette said at an event.
State attorneys general could use more time when looking over mergers and acquisitions within the artificial intelligence industry, according to Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Odette.Odette has served as chair of the National Association of Attorneys General's Multistate Antitrust Task Force since 2024.
Enforcement at the state level is limited with varying access to tools and information, but having more time to interview market participants and third parties would serve states well, Odette said at an event* on Monday.
“One thought I had in preparing for this panel was that perhaps the structure that we have for HSR review and how much time there is typically from the beginning to end may not be appropriate for this industry,” Odette said. “We're never going to say that tools are inefficient because we have to use what we have and they're adequate for what we need them to have them for, but I think more time would be really helpful here.”
Allowing more time at the front end of a deal timeline when dominant participants in an industry are involved would not be harmful and could even benefit parties, Odette said. Companies that see their mergers go to court would battle against radically different industry views from enforcers for courts to weigh.
— State HSR —
With Washington and Colorado enacting state-level Hart-Scott-Rodino Act laws, allowing them to receive federal premerger notification filings, states have begun to receive and comb through information that can identify matters worth looking into.
“Those states have gotten benefit from the long form and receiving it,” Odette said. “They received way more submissions than they would have liked and don't have the fiscal note that came along with it they would have liked, but I think they appreciate the additional information so that they can more easily make a determination on what they really need to be going after and which mergers are problematic.”
With the expanded HSR form subject to litigation, states could move to acquire information deemed useful from parties without being subject to the federal HSR form itself (see here).
“Those states may go back and still want all that information,” Odette said. “So instead of our law saying that we get the HSR form, maybe we'll just incorporate. And that won't stop the companies from having to do it. So I think that, unfortunately, is a problem, because it's already out of the box.”
*“The Washington Antitrust and Digital Markets Forum," organized by MLex, George Washington University Competition Law Center, Forum Global, Washington, DC, March 23, 2026.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.