Category: General

By Sean P. McConnell, Christopher H. Casey and Katherine Speegle

State attorneys general are increasingly challenging federal antitrust settlements and merger approvals—most recently in the $6.2 billion Nexstar/Tegna broadcast television transaction. In addition, congressional Democrats have proposed expanding the Tunney Act to enhance transparency, empower states to continue abandoned federal cases, and constrain merger closings during judicial review. For companies planning strategic transactions, these developments signal that federal clearance alone may no longer end deal risk.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

On February 10, 2026, Republican attorneys general from 10 states sent letters to 80 companies warning them that their participation in groups seeking to reduce plastic usage may constitute a violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The letter campaign was led by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. 

Uthmeier’s office posted online a sample letter addressed to Costco.

The letters target companies the AGs believe to be members of one or more of three environmental organizations—the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition—that allegedly seek coordination among the companies with the goal of reducing the use of plastics.  These organizations, the AGs allege, “pressure companies into artificially changing the output and quality of their goods and services,” thus distorting normal market forces.  Such initiatives, the AGs warn, may constitute “unlawful restraints of trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,” and their states’ antitrust and consumer protection laws.

Coordinated reductions in the output or quality of goods and services, under some circumstances, can be anticompetitive. 

The AGs put the companies on notice that they should expect “formal investigative demands, subpoenas, or other compulsory legal process” regarding their participation in these initiatives, and that they should preserve relevant documents, communications, and data.  

In addition to Florida, the letters were signed by the AGs of Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Texas, and West Virginia. 

The letters are the latest example of a significant uptick in antitrust enforcement by state attorneys general across the country.

On December 19, 2025, a bi-partisan coalition of 23 state attorneys general submitted reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the agency not to issue any declaratory ruling purporting to preempt state and local laws that seek to govern or limit uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI).  The AGs stated that such a ruling would be beyond the FCC’s authority.

In its Notice of Inquiry, the FCC requested comment on the question “As [AI] begins to play a bigger role in the provision of communications services, should the Commission consider whether state or local laws seeking to govern or limit uses of AI are prohibiting or effectively prohibiting the provision of wireline telecommunications services?” Various commenters supported a declaratory rule preempting state or local laws regulating AI.  The state AGs’ comments were issued in reply to these comments. 

While acknowledging that AI is “a transformative technology with a number of promising uses,” the AGs claim that “[s]tates across the political spectrum are legitimately concerned about how businesses using AI may harm their citizens and/or interfere with their own core responsibilities.” 

The state AGs argue that AI is a broad and undefined term that encompasses a wide category of information services that are beyond the FCC’s jurisdiction to regulate and urge the FCC to “stand down and allow Congress to first decide what, if any, federal preemption of state (and local) regulation of AI is appropriate.” 

Examples of current or pending state and local laws that seek to govern or limit AI include laws involving:  AI-generated deepfakes and AI-generated explicit material; basic disclosures when consumers are interacting with specific kinds of AI; the setting of rents through the use of AI; new forms of consumer scams; ensuring identity protection for endorsements and other AI-generated content; and consumer opt-out of consequential automated decisions.

The state AGs argue that none of these laws is “remotely related to limiting the entry or operation of telecommunications networks.”

The reply comments follow a December 11 Executive Order by the President setting forth a national policy framework for AI and directing the FCC to initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

The reply comments are signed by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.