The budget reconciliation bill passed the House of Representatives by a one-vote margin, 215 to 214, and soon will be considered by Senate committees. The day before the House vote, the Rules Committee...
State regulations on housing discrimination protect individuals even when they are not otherwise included under federal law. Explore this U.S. 50 state, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories law survey...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future consideration—it’s a core component of how businesses operate today. From automating workflows to powering proprietary tools, AI is reshaping...
This checklist covers the applicability of artificial intelligence (AI) in areas critical to life sciences and healthcare companies, including data privacy, intellectual property, and research and development...
Do you need to understand key labor and employment considerations for companies and their legal counsel navigating mergers and acquisitions and other business transactions? Review our recently published...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
While the antitrust policy priorities of the new Administration continue to be developed, one possible result of the election may be increased activity by state attorneys general (AGs). Antitrust enforcement is a shared enterprise. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have joint jurisdiction as federal enforcers. But federal antitrust laws also empower both state enforcers and private litigants. Likewise, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes provide a second level of legal authority to punish and prohibit anticompetitive conduct—and are often enforced uniquely by state enforcers.
One historical reaction to a reduction in federal antitrust enforcement has been an increase in state investigations (and private lawsuits). With the current slate of litigation against tech companies, alleging unilateral conduct theories, and the incoming Administration’s perceived skepticism of tech monopolies, the most likely possible change may be coming in merger enforcement. The outgoing Administration was known for its attempts to aggressively change merger policy and law and its mixed record of litigating cases. Wall Street appears to anticipate reduced enforcement and increasing deal flow.
Will state AGs step in, and would such action pressure federal enforcers? It is not unheard of for state AGs to independently pursue merger litigation—as illustrated by the Sprint/T-Mobile litigation during Trump I.
Practice Guidance tracks key state AG offices and is increasing our coverage of significant state antitrust laws, helping you stay on top of state AGs reactions to the new Administration and new directions.
To keep up to date with the latest developments at the state AG level, follow the California Attorney General Antitrust Tracker, New York Attorney General Antitrust Tracker, and Texas Attorney General Antitrust Tracker. For federal developments, see DOJ/FTC Antitrust Agency Developments Tracker, DOJ Antitrust Case Tracker (Civil Nonmerger), and FTC Antitrust Case Tracker (Civil Nonmerger).
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+