In April, a bipartisan coalition of 34 state attorneys general won a landmark jury verdict against Live Nation — after the DOJ settled its own case mid-trial. Weeks earlier, a separate multistate coalition persuaded a court to block the Nexstar-Tegna merger that federal regulators had already cleared. Michelle Mantine, who leads the antitrust & competition team at Reed Smith, spoke with CCI about what cases like these signal for companies that have built their compliance programs around federal enforcement priorities — and why that may no longer be enough.
When the DOJ settled its claims against Live Nation, 34 state attorneys general kept going — and won. The verdict, establishing monopolization liability across ticketing services and large amphitheater bookings, was a pointed demonstration of something compliance professionals can no longer afford to treat as theoretical: State AGs don’t need federal cover to bring consequential antitrust cases, and increasingly, they don’t wait for it. For companies in the crosshairs of an active multistate coalition, states may be usurping the feds as primary enforcers.
Michelle Mantine leads the antitrust & competition practice at Reed Smith, where she advises clients across industries navigating a state-AG enforcement environment that she describes as shifting on a “near-annual basis.” Reed Smith recently launched a tracker tool to help companies monitor the developments that Mantine argues in a written Q&A with CCI are moving faster than most compliance programs have accounted for.
“Many companies have antitrust compliance programs that were designed primarily with federal enforcement and private litigation risk in mind,” Mantine wrote. “Those programs may not adequately account for the distinct theories of harm, lower evidentiary thresholds and broader remedial authority that state AGs can bring to bear.”
CCI: What industries are most exposed right now, and what does the enforcement activity actually look like in those sectors?
Michelle Mantine: The industries facing the greatest exposure to state AG antitrust enforcement right now include healthcare and pharmaceuticals, technology, banking and financial services, and energy. In the healthcare and pharmaceutical space, state AGs have been particularly aggressive in pursuing cases involving drug pricing, pay-for-delay agreements and anticompetitive conduct among hospital systems and pharmacy benefit managers. These cases often involve allegations that consumers are directly harmed through inflated prices, which gives state AGs a strong consumer-protection hook for their enforcement actions.
In the technology sector, enforcement activity has centered on platform dominance, data practices and allegations that major tech companies have leveraged their market positions to suppress competition. State AGs have shown a willingness to bring standalone actions or join multistate coalitions targeting conduct that they believe harms consumers and small businesses in their states.
In banking and financial services, enforcement tends to focus on fee structures, lending practices and mergers that may reduce competition in local markets. Energy markets have also drawn scrutiny, particularly around pricing practices and market manipulation. Across all of these sectors, the enforcement activity typically manifests in the form of civil investigative demands (CIDs), multistate investigations and ultimately consent decrees or litigation seeking injunctive relief, restitution and significant civil penalties.
CCI: What new tools are states giving their AGs — what’s changing legislatively, and how quickly is that happening?
MM: We are seeing a notable trend of states enacting legislation that expands the investigative and enforcement authority of their attorneys general. Several states have passed or are considering new antitrust statutes that go beyond the traditional federal framework. These laws may lower the threshold for establishing antitrust violations, create state-specific theories of harm or provide for enhanced penalties and remedies that are not available under federal antitrust law.
Some states have introduced legislation that targets specific industries or business practices — for instance, laws aimed at pharmaceutical pricing or non-compete agreements. Others have broadened their AGs’ subpoena and CID powers, making it easier and faster to initiate investigations.
The pace of change is accelerating. What was once a relatively stable legislative landscape is now shifting on a near-annual basis in several key states. Companies need to monitor not just existing law but pending legislation that could change their exposure profile quickly.
CCI: How does a company end up facing a multistate coalition action? What typically triggers it?
MM: Multistate coalition actions are typically triggered by conduct that has a broad, cross-border impact on consumers. The most common triggers include high-profile mergers and acquisitions, public reports or media coverage of potentially anticompetitive practices, whistleblower complaints and spillover from federal investigations. When federal enforcers open an investigation or bring a case, state AGs will often conduct their own parallel review, and if they believe the federal response is insufficient or does not address state-specific harms, they may organize a coalition action.
The mechanics of coalition formation usually begin with one or a small number of state AG offices identifying potentially anticompetitive conduct and reaching out to counterparts in other states. The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) plays a facilitating role in these efforts, providing a forum for coordination. Once a critical mass of states expresses interest, a lead state or group of lead states will typically manage the investigation, issue CIDs and negotiate on behalf of the coalition.
It is worth noting that companies sometimes trigger multistate attention through their own public statements, regulatory filings or industry practices that are widely known. Even conduct that a company views as pro-competitive can draw scrutiny if it results in observable market effects.
Sutter Health Cases Show Hospitals Are Not Immune From Antitrust Exposure
Judges ruled against Sutter at trial and appellate levels despite critical services provided, reversing dismissals and evidentiary exclusions
Read moreDetailsCCI: Bipartisan coalitions are notable in today’s political environment. What does that say about antitrust that it’s one of the areas where red and blue state AGs are finding common ground?
MM: Antitrust enforcement is an area of genuine bipartisan consensus among state attorneys general. It is rooted in consumer welfare and market fairness, principles that resonate across the political spectrum. Some AGs may be motivated by concerns about free markets, corporate overreach and protecting small businesses and consumers in their states. Other AGs may emphasize concerns about inequality, corporate power and access to essential goods and services. But the underlying analytical framework — that anticompetitive conduct harms consumers and markets — provides a common foundation.
CCI: How should a company’s compliance program account for 50 different state AG offices, each with their own priorities and authority?
MM: The challenge of navigating 50 different state AG offices requires a compliance program that is both centralized in its core principles and flexible in its implementation. At the foundational level, a company should ensure that its antitrust compliance program is designed to comply with the most stringent state requirements, not merely federal law.
Practically, this means companies should invest in monitoring tools and intelligence resources that track enforcement trends, legislative developments and public statements from state AG offices across the country.
Companies should also conduct regular risk assessments that are tailored to the states in which they operate. For example, a company with significant operations in states known for aggressive antitrust enforcement — such as California, New York, Texas or Ohio — should calibrate its compliance training and internal review processes to reflect the priorities of those offices.
CCI: When a multistate coalition comes knocking, how is that different from responding to a single federal investigation? What does it mean practically for the company on the receiving end?
MM: Responding to a multistate coalition investigation is a fundamentally different experience from responding to a single federal investigation, and companies that approach it with a federal-investigation mindset often find themselves at a disadvantage. The most immediate practical difference is the multiplicity of decision-makers. In a federal investigation, you are dealing with one agency — the DOJ or the FTC — with a single chain of command. In a multistate coalition, you may be dealing with dozens of AG offices, each with its own political considerations, resource constraints and legal authority.
From a strategic standpoint, companies facing a multistate coalition should identify the lead states early and invest in understanding their priorities and concerns.
CCI: What’s the most important thing companies in high-risk sectors like healthcare and tech should be doing right now that many of them aren’t?
MM: The single most important thing that companies in high-risk sectors should be doing is conducting proactive, candid internal assessments of their competitive practices with state AG enforcement specifically in mind. Many companies have antitrust compliance programs that were designed primarily with federal enforcement and private litigation risk in mind. Those programs may not adequately account for the distinct theories of harm, lower evidentiary thresholds and broader remedial authority that state AGs can bring to bear.
Companies should be asking themselves difficult questions: Are our pricing practices defensible not just under federal law but under the specific antitrust statutes of the states in which we operate? Do our contracts contain provisions — such as noncompetes, exclusivity clauses or most-favored-nation provisions — that could draw state AG scrutiny? Are we monitoring legislative developments that could change our risk profile?
Beyond self-assessment, companies should be investing in relationships and intelligence. This means engaging with trade associations, retaining counsel with specific state AG experience and building capabilities to respond quickly and effectively when an investigation arises.
CCI: Looking ahead, which industries or business practices do you think are most likely to become the next major focus of state AG coalition enforcement, and why?
MM: Looking ahead, several industries and business practices are likely to attract increased state AG coalition enforcement. AI and algorithmic pricing are near the top of the list. As companies increasingly use AI-driven tools to set prices, allocate markets or make competitive decisions, state AGs are likely to scrutinize whether these tools facilitate tacit collusion or other anticompetitive outcomes. The opacity of algorithmic decision-making presents both a novel enforcement challenge and a politically attractive target.
Private equity’s role in healthcare consolidation is another area of growing interest. State AGs have already begun examining the competitive effects of private equity acquisitions in healthcare, and this trend is likely to intensify as consolidation continues and its effects on pricing and quality of care become more visible to consumers and policymakers.
Labor markets and worker mobility are also emerging as a significant area of state AG antitrust focus. Several states have already enacted legislation restricting noncompete agreements, and state AGs have brought enforcement actions challenging no-poach agreements and other practices that suppress worker wages or limit job mobility.
