The future of State and Congressional antitrust enforcement

On September 29, FGS Global and The Capitol Forum brought together state enforcers, congressional staff, pollsters, and lawmakers to examine the future of antitrust enforcement. A few consistent themes defined the day: 

• As federal enforcement has pulled back under the second Trump administration, state AGs have become the primary frontline for antitrust action. 

• Affordability – particularly grocery prices and healthcare costs – is the organizing frame for both enforcers and voters. 

• Companies should engage early and substantively with state AGs and congressional offices, or risk accelerating escalation. 

Blume framed state enforcement as both a legal obligation and a democratic imperative, driven by public frustration over consumer prices and stagnant wages.  

She pointed to California's active docket as proof that states will act independently and aggressively – from securing a liability verdict in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case to going after Amazon for alleged price-fixing to challenging the Nexstar/Tegna merger – while flagging resource constraints as a continued challenge. However, Blume pointed to California’s Compete Act and a new HSR-style pre-merger notification law both set to take effect in January 2027 as positive steps toward matching enforcement capacity to the scale of the challenge. 

The panel's core argument was simple: states have an inherent advantage in identifying harm where it actually occurs.

As one example, Anthony Mariona from the Massachusetts Attorneys General office noted the state secured a divestiture after identifying a real estate investment trust with over 50% market share in downtown Boston's high-rise rental market. The panelists also highlighted that states have the ability to seek money damages and civil penalties that can provide additional relief for consumers. Looking ahead, panelists flagged labor antitrust, algorithmic collusion, and state criminal enforcement as emerging priorities, and were consistent in their advice to companies: engage with state AG offices early and proactively. 

Democratic staff described a clear agenda for the next Congress: build an industry-by-industry record of market concentration, with airline prices, grocery prices, and algorithmic pricing as top priorities. A primary topic of discussion was oversight, and panelists agreed that for companies receiving Hill inquiries, it will be important to engage proactively and substantively with Congress, as boilerplate responses raise the temperature and accelerate escalation to formal investigations. The panel also highlighted how congressional offices are finding new avenues to influence antitrust policy and enforcement beyond legislation, with Sen. Cory Booker's (D-NJ) counsel Brianna Walker noting her boss filed an amicus brief in the Paramount merger case, for example. Separately, Francis Gruber from Rep. Lori Trahan’s office (D-MA) noted his boss has concerns with the antitrust exemption included in the College Sports Protection Act.

Raskin framed the current antitrust enforcement environment as a constitutional crisis, arguing that the Trump administration is exasperating the concentration of economic and political power. He was sharp in his criticism of the "Trump transaction tax," citing the DOJ's Live Nation/Ticketmaster midtrial settlement of $280 million with no structural remedy as a prime example.

However, he noted a bright spot in enforcement when, following the DOJ’s settlement, 33 state AGs, including 13 Republicans, refused to join and won a unanimous liability verdict. Raskin then outlined a four-part agenda for a Democratic House, should they take control next Congress: aggressive oversight of DOJ and FTC, introduction of the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act, expanded state AG authority, and broader statutory reform to address decades of Chicago School judicial passivity. 

The enforcement landscape is shifting fast, and states and Congress are increasingly operating as complementary layers filling the gap left by a federal executive that has stepped back from antitrust leadership. Companies navigating transactions, pricing practices, or market structure issues should treat early engagement with state AGs and congressional offices as essential – not optional. 

Want more updates like this? Sign up for our Antitrust Digest newsletter.

To learn more about FGS Global's Antitrust & Competition team, contact us.