US state attorneys general are rapidly expanding their role as de facto national enforcers, stepping into cases and policy fights that federal agencies are no longer pursuing. With federal enforcement capacity constrained by staffing cuts, shifting priorities and political limitations, state AG offices — now backed by growing budgets and multistate coalitions — have developed the resources and legal strategies to initiate complex litigation on their own.
US state attorneys general are rapidly expanding their role as de facto national enforcers, stepping into cases and policy fights that federal agencies are no longer pursuing. With federal enforcement capacity constrained by staffing cuts, shifting priorities, and political limitations, state AG offices — now backed by growing budgets and multistate coalitions — have developed the resources and legal strategies to initiate complex litigation on their own.State attorneys general are rapidly expanding their role as de facto national enforcers, stepping into cases and policy fights that federal agencies are no longer pursuing.
“I think sometimes state AGs are an afterthought; maybe not anymore,” said Elizabeth Odette, the chair of the antitrust task force of the National Association of Attorneys General.
“They think, ‘Oh, because we've talked with the federal government, we somehow covered our bases with the states.' That shouldn't be the assumption,” she told MLex on the sidelines of a conference.*
With federal enforcement capacity constrained by staffing cuts, shifting priorities and political limitations, state AG offices — now backed by growing budgets and multistate coalitions — have developed the resources and legal strategies to initiate complex litigation on their own.
State attorneys general say antitrust is going through a transitional period, where federal agencies seem to be pulling back on enforcement and settling cases, while states are increasing their staffing and budgets and becoming more engaged.
“Before you had the [US Department of Justice] as the very big brother, and the states were kind of the little siblings running alongside. Now you are seeing more and more state capacity,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. “So when there's an antitrust question, a good lawyer is probably going to make sure they're covering not just the federal angle, but the state angle.”
That sentiment is shared in Massachusetts, where Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said if the federal government "chooses not to enforce the antitrust laws or signs off on deals that are bad for consumers, state attorneys general will continue to fight to protect consumers and ensure markets remain fair and competitive."
State AG budgets and staffing have increased nationwide, allowing them to invest in complex investigations and litigation. AG offices are attracting record funding and national attention, reinforcing their capacity to act.
In the past three years, some states have doubled or tripled their antitrust resources, said Odette, who also serves as Minnesota’s assistant attorney general in the consumer, wage and antitrust division. The Minnesota AG office went from two-and-a-half staffers in 2020 to four, and then six, full-time attorneys working on antitrust today.
AGs also see something remarkable happening at the state level that distinguishes them from the federal agencies: bipartisanship.
Unlike federal antitrust authorities, who have been accused of allowing lobbyists and political considerations to dictate enforcement practice like in Hewlett Packard Enterprise's acquisition of Juniper Networks, or in the Nexstar-Tegna antitrust approval, where the president of the United States intervened in public tweets and instructed antitrust authorities to get the deal done, state AGs have managed to steer clear of their political differences to form bipartisan partnerships, combining their resources in pursuit of what they deem to be justice.
“We're a very polarized country, and Congress obviously has a very hard time doing anything as a result of that,” Skrmetti said. “But you see coalitions of states that are extremely different in their ideological balance working together pretty effectively. I think that's something that should be celebrated. We can occasionally do good things together without regard for the politics because it's the right thing to do.”
Oregon AG Dan Rayfield cited bipartisanship in the ongoing Live Nation-Ticketmaster case (see here).
“That is one where you have Republicans and Democrats. On the eve of trial, the federal government announced its settlement,” Rayfield said. “[That] really put all the states in a really difficult, precarious place, but we're able to come together to do what we need to do as bipartisan coalitions to try and keep that moving forward.”
— Budget and staffing —
The antitrust sections of state attorney general offices have grown in both blue and red states. Some states, like Washington state, are self-funded, so the better they do on antitrust, the more that they can fund litigation.
For those that are not, the state AGs must go to the legislature to ask for additional funding.
“If Oregon has a dog in the fight, then we should be fighting that fight. And if we don't have the resources, then it's my responsibility to go get those resources from the legislature," said Oregon’s Rayfield.
“We're already evaluating our resources, and knowing that I'm going to go back to the Oregon legislature saying, ‘Hey, if you want us to be active, participating in these cases — and it is my recommendation that we are active in these cases — this is what we need to be competitive and sustained.' "
Though bigger, wealthier states such as California and New York have large staffs, the cost of blocking a merger is still a significant factor in whether a state is willing to file suit. Many say that multi-state actions are a necessity to share the cost and drain on resources. Once a lead state is determined, others provide expertise and local contacts.
Rayfield said his office recently began having early conversations on whether the state’s laws are adequate for “what we want to do.”
He said that people get concerned if they have a law on the books that they don’t have the tools to fully use.
“I think sometimes getting the right laws on the books is more challenging than finding the resources." Rayfield said. "We are in the process of looking at our existing laws right now.”
He said that many states are trying to build the necessary capacity to pursue antitrust cases and even the biggest want to add capacity. He said this is “primarily because [of] this abdication of responsibility ... of the federal government. When they are willing to grease deals ... as a result of political favors or political leanings and not impose the law, then that responsibility shifts down to the states.
“There is going to be this realignment and shift of responsibilities that will have to happen over time,” he said.
The states’ relationship with the federal agencies is “a moving target” because of the changes at the DOJ, he said.
“I think part of the equation now is the states are showing they have more autonomy. So, with Live Nation-Ticketmaster ... we just saw the states jump in mid-trial to take over because we didn't agree with the settlement. I think the more leverage we have, probably the better the relationship will be. If we need to be at the table to make sure things get resolved, we’ll be at the table."
Asked how the states can gain leverage, Skrmetti said: “If the DOJ thinks they can settle something, and the states demonstrate that's not necessarily the case, then the states are going to be more engaged in the settlement conversation.”
In addition to increasing full-time staff, some states are also making good use of clerkships, adding capacity in antitrust offices without bringing on more lawyers.
“We get a full-time clerk working on antitrust and consumer protection all summer, for 10 weeks,” Odette said. “And that doesn't seem like much, but when you kind of think about it, across all of the divisions across this country [this will] add up to adding capacity.”
When deciding which cases to pursue, states consider the local harms, whether it is a big enough issue for the state, industry-wise, and whether the state has the resources and specialized knowledge about the particular harm.
California is without question the biggest player. AG Rob Bonta had been a chief critic of the federal antitrust agencies under US President Donald Trump.
“From the firing of [former DOJ Antitrust Division chief] Gail Slater, to the green light of HPE/Juniper, and now the lackluster settlement in Live Nation, it’s abundantly clear: The Trump Administration is more concerned with protecting corporate interests than making life affordable for American families,” Bonta said.
Bonta told MLex that California can tackle antitrust challenges with other states and with the federal government, but it can, and has, mounted legal challenges alone.
“We have a remarkable group of state attorneys general right now who understand just how important antitrust enforcement is to American life and the American economy,” Bonta said. “I am proud that in California — the fourth-largest economy in the world — we can be at the forefront of this work, but it is even better that we have a coalition of sister states who are ready to jump into these fights with us and leverage our collective strength.”
California has 33 attorneys in the antitrust law section, as well as additional support staff. It also has 10 attorneys in the healthcare rights and access section who do healthcare-related competition and antitrust work. California is continuing initiatives to build out its teams and may need to do more of this in the future, Bonta told MLex.
In 2017, California successfully sued to stop Valero Energy from acquiring Plains All American Pipeline, a deal that would have led to higher prices at the pump for Californians, he said. And in 2019 and 2020, California and others challenged the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint after the federal government declined to do so. The states lost the case, but got a post-trial settlement that provided protections for Californians.
“We’re not out to take down corporations or hurt progress,” he said. “Quite the opposite: We’re here to enforce our laws to ensure a competitive, fair, level-playing field where all businesses have the chance to grow and thrive based on what they put in the market. California’s proof that you can have some of the strongest laws on the books and one of the strongest economies in the world.”
— State cases —
A coalition of eight US state attorneys general led by California filed suit earlier this month to block Nexstar Media Group’s proposed acquisition of Tegna, arguing the $6.2 billion deal would consolidate control over local television broadcasting and harm consumers (see here).
Joining California in the coalition are New York, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut and Virginia.
Also this month, Live Nation and the US Department of Justice cut a mid-trial deal to resolve the agency’s claims of monopolization and anticompetitive conduct in the live entertainment and ticketing industries.
But a bipartisan coalition of state AGs is continuing the litigation, rejecting the DOJ settlement (see here) as inadequate. The trial continues, with the states pursuing illegal monopolization and tying claims in an effort to separate Live Nation and subsidiary Ticketmaster (see here).
In another case, the DOJ sued Hewlett Packard Enterprises in January 2025 over its proposed $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, claiming the merger would eliminate fierce head-to-head competition between the second- and third-largest providers of wireless local area network (WLAN) technology (see here).
On the eve of trial, however, the DOJ settled the case under a cloud of alleged political tampering and backdoor negotiations that resulted in the firing of dissenting officials (see here) and calls for an investigation.
States are intervening in the judicial review of the settlement under the Tunney Act and are pressing to find out how the settlement was arrived at, and whether the deal is in the public’s interest (see here).
The case is a rare instance where the DOJ and the states are on opposing sides of litigation, clashing over how much visibility the states should have into the settlement process.
"As the federal government cedes its authority to corporate interests, state attorneys general are stepping forward, fighting unlawful mergers between Tegna Inc. and Nexstar Media Group Inc. [and] Hewlett-Packard and Juniper Networks, and continuing the fight to sufficiently remedy Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s years of misconduct," the Illinois attorney general's office said in a statement to MLex. "We are committed to continuing to uphold antitrust laws that make life more affordable for American families."
A group of states, led again by California, is reviewing Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and investigating whether they should file an antitrust lawsuit in that case, too (see here).
Consumers typically complain to AGs about issues that affect them personally — such as hospital mergers and non-compete agreements — but more recently there have been national movements in which groups advocate for or against a merger, enlisting consumers to encourage state AG offices to investigate without necessarily describing specific harms.
The Paramount acquisition of Warner Bros Discovery is such case, MLex has learned.
— Evolving concerns —
Thomas York, chief of the Texas Attorney General’s antitrust division and a former antitrust partner at Jones Day, said the scope of state antitrust enforcement is broadening.
Speaking at a conference on Monday,** York said state antitrust efforts have largely focused on local issues for many decades — local mergers, bid-rigging, and conduct — but that is not due to a formal delineation of state and federal interests.
When state and federal agencies have worked together, states could provide information on the local markets — for instance, how far consumers had to drive for services — and they also knew local sources and experts.
What has changed, he said, is the concentration and size of the “local” companies.
“If you look at grocery stores in the recent Kroger-Albertsons transaction, they are not local or regional chains anymore; these are national,” he said. “So, what’s happened is that our capabilities have had to expand. And if we want to protect our consumers we have to be willing to take on national and even international antitrust matters."
Texas consumers are increasingly concerned about companies’ market power, and people are looking to their attorneys general to do something about it, he said.
York said Texas has about 20 antitrust staffers and access to litigators in other areas that he can draw from. His state and others continue to add experienced litigators.
“We are ready to go,” he said about bringing cases. “This is what we do.”
The combination of reduced federal action and increased state capacity has fundamentally shifted the balance of antitrust enforcement: State attorneys general are no longer backup enforcers — they are now central players, with the resources and coordination to independently drive major litigation and regulatory outcomes.'
Whether that results in greater accountability or a more fragmented enforcement landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Companies can no longer look solely to Washington to gauge antitrust risk. The states are establishing a place at the center of the fight.
*American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting 2026. Washington, DC. March 25-27, 2026.
**"The Washington Antitrust and Digital Markets Forum," organized by MLex, George Washington University Competition Law Center, and 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.