State attorneys general across the United States are taking a larger role in policing mergers and competition, with new laws and increased scrutiny pointing to tougher antitrust enforcement at the state level.
Legal officials, regulators and corporate counsel speaking at an industry conference in California said businesses should expect more investigations, more filings and longer review timelines as states expand their authority alongside federal agencies.
The discussion, hosted by Baker McKenzie in East Palo Alto, brought together representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, the California Attorney General’s Office, academics from the USC Gould School of Law, and in-house counsel from Intel.
Opening the event, law professor D. Daniel Sokol pointed to leadership changes in Washington and a shift toward stronger state participation. Referring to the planned departure of Gail Slater from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, he called it “a big sea change.”
He added that, “The states increasingly matter a lot more” in antitrust matters as more jurisdictions adopt premerger notification rules.
California is among the latest states to require companies planning mergers to alert state regulators in advance, joining Colorado and Washington. The goal, officials said, is to review deals at the same time as federal authorities rather than after decisions are made.
Still, enforcement levels tend to rise and fall over time, according to Paula Blizzard, a senior antitrust official with the California attorney general’s office.
“it does go in cycles,” she said.
“There are periods where there are simply a lot more merger filings; the more filings you get, possibly the more disagreements you could have,” Blizzard said. “We may be headed into one of those periods now.”
Federal regulators noted that reviews often depend on the sector. Daniel Guarnera of the FTC said hospital transactions, for example, frequently trigger state investigations.
From the corporate side, companies are preparing for heavier workloads. Sarretta McDonough, Intel’s chief regulatory counsel, warned that each added regulator can slow transactions and create new uncertainty.
“I do think every time you add a regulator to your timeline and filings, you add additional uncertainty,” she said.
She predicted more states will adopt similar notification requirements, multiplying requests for information. “Then all of a sudden, you’re getting calls and you’re doing work and answering questions for each of those jurisdictions in addition to doing it with the federal government,” she said. “All of a sudden you’ve got a deal that’s being delayed because Indiana has more questions.”
California lawmakers are also considering broader changes to the state’s main antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, which could expand the state’s ability to challenge monopolies and mergers. Blizzard said those proposals are being handled by legislators and legal review bodies, not her office, though they are “potentially interested in expanding” the law.
In a separate panel, Peter Orszag, CEO of Lazard, said political divisions between states and the federal government are contributing to the rise in local enforcement.
“We’re living in a country that is highly polarized. So if you’ve got a state that’s blue and doesn’t like the direction of federal antitrust policy, it’s more likely that you’re going to have state attorneys general and others diverging,” Orszag said.
He added that state involvement in areas such as health care and insurance has existed for years, but “it feels more prominent today.”
