Antitrust enforcement is gaining traction across offices of state attorneys general nationwide, with more states having elevated it as a priority heading into 2026 — signaling a smoother path for cases to reach top decisionmakers, according to Elizabeth Odette, chair of the antitrust task force at the National Association of Attorneys General. Antitrust's rising profile across a broader swath of states is reshaping how quickly multistate cases can be mobilized and how assertively attorneys general's offices weigh in alongside, or independently from, federal enforcers.
Antitrust enforcement is gaining traction across offices of state attorneys general nationwide, with more states having elevated it as a priority heading into this year — signaling a smoother path for cases to reach top decisionmakers, according to Elizabeth Odette, chair of the antitrust task force at the National Association of Attorneys General. The rising profile of antitrust across a broader swath of states is reshaping how quickly multistate cases can be mobilized and how assertively attorneys general's offices weigh in alongside, or independently from, federal enforcers.
This was evident in the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case, where nearly three dozen states and the District of Columbia decided to press claims that the entertainment company and its ticketing subsidiary are blocking competition and driving up prices for fans, despite the US Department of Justice and a handful of states agreeing to settle with the companies, according to the NAAG official.
The antitrust divisions of state attorneys general's offices had to quickly make decisions and recommendations that go up to the attorneys general themselves, Odette told MLex in an exclusive interview on the sidelines of a conference* in Washington.
“I think that likely means there will be a smoother path up to the front offices, because now it isn’t just the big states that are realizing that antitrust is something that is likely going to need a lot of focus in 2026,” she said.
“Now all the AGs are kind of realizing, if they hadn't already, that antitrust is something that their offices are likely going to be meeting to put a focus on,” Odette said.
Not all attorney general offices are set up for rapid response, she said, adding that antitrust cases are big and long and states are collectively trying to navigate how to be better and more efficient.
— A political game —
State attorney general offices are political by nature. Those that share a political affiliation with the US president are likely to feel pressure to stick with the White’s House’s official positions.
But most state attorneys general are also elected officials whose futures are ultimately determined by the impact they have on the lives of their state’s citizens.
“I think [attorneys general] are going to be making individual decisions. It’s hard to know which cases the federal government and the states will diverge on,” Odette said.
She said that the states are still in cases with the federal government.
“Right now Minnesota has AgriStats going to trial in May. We have the Apple case, DOJ cases, we have Deere and pesticides with the [Federal Trade Commission], and those are proceeding forward,” Odette said. “I think we have a pretty strong track record as states in working together, and it really comes down to what those AGs decide. I can't predict. I couldn't predict for you which states would stay in and out of it.”
Still, Odette said that state attorneys general are trying to find common ground going forward with the federal antitrust agencies.
“'States are a headache and make a case a little more challenging' is a position that's been held over time,” Odette said. “And I think the counterargument to that is that states provide local support. States provide additional resources. States provide additional perspective.”
She cited the example of the GTCR-Surmodics case, where the FTC was able to count on Minnesota to have a person in the room, participating in depositions that were taken in Minnesota.
— Mini-HSRs —
Three states have passed laws ensuring their attorneys general get the same Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger filings that the FTC and DOJ are given.
Some states have said they don’t have the resources to sort through the filings and they trust the federal agencies. Others appreciate the data and it's motivating states to push forward legislation requiring equal access.
“I think if you talk to the states that have passed it — Colorado and Washington have had it in place for a little while — they have identified some places where it could be tweaked and improved a little bit,” Odette said.
One idea, she said, is to add a nominal fee on the companies, which would provide financial support for states to hire attorneys to go through the filings.
The HSR filings “are helpful, and I think other states are looking at it. California is the third state that will soon begin gaining access to HSR forms,” Odette said.
And the more states that pass their own laws, the easier it will be for states to share the information across states without going to the parties individually to get it.
Odette said the challenge for the states is time. “I understand that parties want to move transactions forward, but I think sometimes the argument that the short timeframe is necessary is not always the case, and a little more time allowed for states could save a lot of people a headache.”
She said more clarity is needed for states that have mini-HSR laws in addition to their healthcare notification law, because it has caused some confusion in Washington and Colorado about whether compliance is required from both concomitantly.
“I think that's something that Minnesota is thinking about, is it's really great to have this tailored healthcare transaction law, and we don't want to kind of lose or dilute that, but we also would really like to have a more broad one, and so kind of trying to figure out how we can do that in a way that doesn't impact negatively our healthcare work,” Odette said.
*"Antitrust in Action: Enforcement Priorities and the Path Forward," FGS Global and Semafor, Washington, DC and online, March 26, 2026.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.