State Attorneys General Break from Federal Lead in Antitrust Crackdown

U.S. state attorneys general are shifting from supporting roles to independent actors in antitrust enforcement. This transition ensures that legal challenges against dominant market players continue even when federal priorities shift or settlements are reached.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti argues that states are no longer merely partners to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This independence is most visible in high-profile litigation involving Google, Apple, and the live entertainment sector. In a notable example of this autonomy, Tennessee and its partners pushed the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case through trial after the DOJ settled its own portion of the litigation. These bipartisan state coalitions have become more durable, prioritizing the actual consumer experience—such as the friction in online search and ticket buying—as the primary indicator of competition failures.

The Shift Toward Federalism

Historically, the national antitrust agenda was dictated by the DOJ and FTC, with states acting as secondary participants. However, recent trends show states leveraging federalism to protect their citizens independently. By establishing their own legal theories and demands for remedies, states have created a regulatory safety net. This structure prevents antitrust enforcement from being entirely dependent on the political leanings of a single federal administration, ensuring that monopoly harms are addressed regardless of changes in Washington.

Implications for Big Tech

This fragmented landscape presents a significant new challenge for Big Tech and other conglomerates. Previously, a settlement with the federal government often signaled the end of a legal battle. Now, companies face a reality where federal concessions do not guarantee immunity from state-led actions. As Skrmetti noted, "One of the beauties of federalism is we don’t have to worry about all our eggs being in one basket."

Furthermore, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new tension in judicial remedies. While AI may eventually disrupt existing markets, state regulators are resisting the idea that future technological shifts should justify current inaction. Skrmetti warned that speculating about the future allows ongoing harms to persist, stating, "If you’re speculating about what the future looks like, that means ongoing harms can continue."

The Path Forward

Industry observers should watch for an increase in state-led coalitions that bypass federal coordination entirely. The focus is expected to remain on immediate, concrete fixes to monopoly power rather than waiting for AI to naturally erode market dominance. While the federal government may seek broad settlements, the persistence of state attorneys general suggests that the era of the "one-stop-shop" legal resolution for Big Tech is over.