State attorneys general (AGs)—often alongside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice—are using a mix of traditional antitrust and consumer protection tools to police everything from drug pricing to digital platforms to junk fees. Below is a snapshot of some recent enforcement actions taken by state AGs and practical takeaways for businesses.
Old-School Antitrust is Back: Price Fixing and Bid Rigging
Public contracting: A state procurement settlement in Connecticut resolved allegations of coordinated bidding on a state commercial moving services contract, including a monetary payment and commitments tied to antitrust compliance and avoiding collusive bidding practices.
Competition by Contract: Platform and Partner Deals Under the Microscope
A multistate AG coalition sued Zillow and Redfin over alleged contractual restraints in multifamily rental advertising. The complaint highlights exclusivity-style provisions and a paid syndication arrangement that, according to the states, reduced head-to-head competition for advertising customers.
Algorithms Move from Theory to Statute
California enacted Cartwright Act amendments targeting common pricing algorithms that rely on competitor data or facilitate coordinated pricing, and separately increased potential penalties for Cartwright Act violations.
Consumer Pricing Transparency: Mandatory Fees and Drip Pricing
Massachusetts finalized 940 CMR 38.00 (effective September 2, 2025), pushing businesses toward clearer total price disclosure and tighter treatment of mandatory fees. The AG’s office issued practical guidance on how it expects the rule to apply.
Charity/Fundraising Deception
Delaware announced a coordinated FTC-state action which involved 19 other states to stop an allegedly deceptive cancer charity fundraising scheme. The public allegations focus on how much of donors’ money actually reached charitable screening services, with proposed remedies including restrictions and bans.
State Public Interest Review of Healthcare Transactions
California continues to signal active oversight of covered healthcare transactions, including the possibility of independent monitors and other conditions where the AG believes they are necessary to protect the public interest.
Monopolization of data
Texas sued Epic Systems in state court, alleging Epic has monopoly power in electronic health records (EHR) software and has used contracts and technical restrictions to delay or limit rivals’ access to EHR data—making it harder for innovative third-party tools to compete. Texas also alleges Epic sold EHR systems to Texas providers preconfigured to restrict parents’ access to their minor children’s records and supported those settings with misleading recommendations.
State AG action, independent from federal, is expected to continue in the coming year. Companies should monitor their AGs’ activity and take proactive steps to avoid unnecessary risks.
Practical takeaways for businesses
- Treat competitor communications as a high-risk area. Information-sharing around pricing, customers, capacity, or bidding could become the centerpiece of an enforcement theory.
- Contracts can be the anticompetitive conduct. Exclusivity, noncompete-style terms, or exit obligations between competitors can be framed as anticompetitive agreements.
- Audit pricing technology now. If you use third-party pricing tools, understand what data the third party ingests and whether the tools are trained on or informed by competitor data.
- Make pricing transparent and defensible. Review how you present mandatory fees and total prices, especially for consumer-facing offerings.
- Substantiate marketing and fundraising claims. If you make representations about outcomes (e.g., where money goes), expect regulators to test them against real-world facts.
- For software and data-platform businesses, treat interoperability and data access as a competition risk area. If you control a must-have system, then inconsistent application programming interface terms, delays, or technical barriers can be characterized as exclusionary conduct—so document objective criteria, apply them consistently, and review default settings for consumer/employee impacts.
For more information on antitrust and consumer protection state AG enforcement, please contact Robin Crauthers or the McCarter attorney with whom you work.