The changing federal regulatory landscape creates new opportunities for aggressive state-level enforcement in California. Morrison Foerster’s team of Carrie H. Cohen, Christine Y. Wong, Brian R. Michael and C.B. Rome outlines California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s anticipated 2025 priorities, including environmental actions seeking profit disgorgement, collaborative antitrust investigations and intensified oversight of social media platforms and AI.
It is safe to say 2025 is expected to be a busy year for California Attorney General Rob Bonta. We anticipate that the California AG will increase enforcement activity this year with wide-reaching and broad investigations across a number of priorities, including challenges to certain actions by the new presidential administration and a focus on perceived gaps in federal regulation. While many areas will undoubtedly spring up over the course of the next several months, three key priorities are expected to be in sharp focus: environment, antitrust and technology.
Environment
As the Trump Administration has taken, and likely will continue to take, actions to reverse or roll back many of the Biden Administration’s climate and energy policies, certain state attorneys general, including Bonta, are expected to step in to address the perceived regulatory gaps at the federal level. The California AG already has emerged as a strong enforcer of the state’s environmental policies and has been active in bringing actions against the fossil fuel industry and other alleged corporate polluters, and this enforcement activity is expected to ramp up given the new administration’s differing stance on environmental regulation.
In 2024, for example, the CA AG entered into settlements with multiple companies concerning alleged unlawful disposal and mismanagement of hazardous waste, including a $3.5 million settlement with Frontier, which included supplemental environmental projects and required changes to its operations in order to comply with California law; and a nearly $5 million settlement with Quest Diagnostics, which included requirements to maintain an environmental compliance program, hire a third-party waste auditor and report annually on its progress.
Moreover, the CA AG has demonstrated a willingness to seek increased penalties, including the disgorgement of profits, in environmental lawsuits. In June 2024, the office amended their lawsuit against five major fossil fuel companies to include the disgorgement remedy under AB 1366, enacted earlier that year, which requires defendants who violate California consumer protection laws to forfeit profits obtained through those activities. This action, originally filed in September 2023, alleged that the defendant companies had engaged in false advertising and misleading marketing regarding the impact of burning fossil fuels on the climate.
The CA AG also has sought disgorgement in a recently filed suit against ExxonMobil, alleging that the company engaged in “a decades-long campaign of deception” that contributed to the global plastics pollution crisis. While environmental cases do not seem an obvious use for AB 1366, which was designed to provide victims of false advertising and unfair competition adequate recovery, the application of a consumer protection remedy in these instances could expose companies in various sectors to similar intensified scrutiny by the CA AG of their marketing and disclosure practices.
Antitrust
State AGs have become increasingly active in antitrust enforcement, working both in collaboration with and independently from federal authorities. This trend is expected to continue, with the CA AG remaining a key player in major merger and conduct investigations.
For example, the California AG, the FTC and a bipartisan coalition of states halted the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons. Their lawsuit, filed in February 2024, alleged that the $25 billion merger would further consolidate the retail grocery market in Southern California, potentially leading to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. Likewise, in another collaboration with the federal government, the CA AG, along with the DOJ and a bipartisan coalition of 30 state AGs, filed a lawsuit against Live Nation, alleging unlawful conduct that has stifled competition in the ticketing and promotions of live music concerts.
State AG collaboration is expected to continue in 2025, as state AGs often are able to work in a bipartisan manner on certain issues. But, even if state AG bipartisan collaboration becomes more limited in the antitrust space, the CA AG is expected to continue its antitrust enforcement activities on its own as well as in partnership with other like-minded AGs.
Technology
California’s AG, like many other state attorneys general, will continue to address perceived harms presented by technology, with a focus on social media and AI.
Last year, the CA AG joined a bipartisan group of 42 state AGs urging Congress to pass legislation that would require a US surgeon general warning on all algorithm-driven social media platforms. Along these lines, the CA AG also brought suits against certain social media platforms for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws. One suit, co-led with New York Attorney General Letitia James and joined by 14 other state AGs, alleged that a large video-based platform’s business model violates consumer protection laws by maximizing young users’ time on the platform to boost revenue from targeted advertising. The CA AG’s ongoing legislative efforts and enforcement efforts through state consumer protection laws make clear that the CA AG will continue to use many tools in the enforcement toolbox to target online safety and privacy.
As with its approach to social media platforms, the CA AG issued two legal advisories at the start of 2025 announcing its intention to use its full array of enforcement authority to regulate AI. The first legal advisory provides a broad overview and summary of existing and new California laws that may apply to entities that develop, sell or use AI, including consumer protection, civil rights, competition, data protection and election misinformation laws, as well as new disclosure and reporting requirements. The second advisory explicitly is directed to the healthcare industry, identifying ways in which consumer protection, civil rights, competition and patient privacy laws apply in the healthcare AI context. Specific guidance from the advisory offered for healthcare entities includes ensuring AI systems are tested, validated and audited to prevent harm and bias, and transparency with patients about AI use.
Carrie H. Cohen
Christine Y. Wong
Brian R. Michael
C.B. Rome
