2025 marked another notable year in State Attorneys General (AG) enforcement, with both a sharp uptick in multistate AG actions filed against the federal government and significant actions targeting the private sector across industries. We will highlight two issue areas here—antitrust and consumer protection—and describe the escalating friction between State AGs and the federal government as well as distill this year’s trends into actionable takeaways for businesses as we enter 2026.

Antitrust

Antitrust has long been an area of frequent State AG collaboration, with a bipartisan group of State AGs currently spearheading the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Multistate Antitrust Task Force. In the past year, antitrust enforcement has particularly emphasized algorithmic price fixing, labor market issues (including non-competes and wage-fixing), state lawsuits brought by Republican State AGs opposing ESG initiatives through an antitrust lens, and merger enforcement.

On the merger enforcement front in particular, the interplay between State AGs and federal U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) highlights the growing role of State AGs in antitrust enforcement. For example, after initially suing to block the proposed merger in January 2025, DOJ changed its position in June, announcing a proposed settlement. Thirteen Democratic State AGs moved to intervene in federal district court in October, raising concerns about whether the settlement adequately protected consumers and was politically motivated. In November, the district court granted the State AGs’ motion to intervene, showing the heightened influence State AGs may carry when banding together to achieve a particular policy goal, either in tandem with or against that of the federal administration.

Consumer Protection

Consumer protection continues to be among the most prominent issues for State AGs, as well as an area of bipartisan and federal collaboration. There appears to be rising energy among Democratic AGs in this last quarter of 2025, particularly as the CFPB’s influence has narrowed at the federal level. For example, just this month, the Democratic Attorney Generals Association (DAGA) announced a new “Consumer Protection and Affordability Working Group,” with the stated aim of providing “consistency and certainty” for businesses and focusing on the healthcare, technology, and financial services sectors. In addition, on December 1, 2025, a group of seven Democratic State AGs, led by North Carolina, sent letters to six “Buy Now Pay Later” providers, inquiring about lending practices and their compliance with state consumer protection laws. On December 22, a group of 21 Democratic State AGs also sued the Trump administration in connection with CFPB defunding efforts.  

Looking ahead to 2026, we expect the current Republican State AGs to continue prioritizing consumer protection along with other key policy priorities. For example, earlier this year, a group of 11 Republican State AGs warned in a letter to major financial institutions that certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DE&I”) and environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) commitments may lead to enforcement actions if found to be in violation of state or federal law, stating that such policies may “prioritize politics over consumers and investors.” DE&I continues to be a hot button issue, including in the False Claims Act (FCA) context, and we expect this focus to continue evolving on both the state and federal enforcement levels.

In addition, 2025 revealed a growing focus on “junk fees” and cryptocurrency. For example, in the “junk fees” space, the October 2025 National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Fall Consumer Protection Conference included a bipartisan panel of AGs focused on consumer protection, including price transparency. In the realm of crypto, an October 2025 letter signed by 21 State AGs and led by the Iowa AG responded to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Request for Information on how to best regulate that industry, stating, “Scammers need to be held accountable . . . and we are helping [the SEC] understand how regulation could have unintended consequences that hurt consumers.”

Tension with the federal government

It is not surprising that a change in presidential administration has led to flipped coalitions of State AGs, either in alignment with or opposed to federal enforcement priorities. These reshuffled coalitions leave companies with decisions on how to best navigate these varied enforcement visions, particularly in rapidly evolving areas such as AI.

A key trend is State AGs increasing enforcement in areas like antitrust, state-level FCPA cases after federal narrowing, and securities actions against a major cryptocurrency exchange following SEC dismissal.

We have also seen an explosion of multistate litigation filed against the federal government. To illustrate, in President Obama’s first term, only 25 AG multistate lawsuits were filed against the federal government. This number exploded during President Trump’s first term, with 160 such lawsuits filed. In just the first four months of 2025 alone, thirty such lawsuits were filed. If litigation were to continue at that rate, nearly 500 such lawsuits could be filed by the end of the term. Multistate lawsuits addressed a variety of issues, including opposition to the Executive Order on birthright citizenship, disputes over the disclosure of consumer data linked to Medicaid or SNAP benefits, and objections to the ending of medical research grants.

Finally, AI has become a hot-button State AG priority and a striking example of federalism at work. On December 9, a bipartisan group of 42 State AGs sent a letter to key tech and AI distribution companies, demanding increased quality control and other safeguards. Similarly, a bipartisan team led by the Utah and North Carolina AGs and major AI developers announced a nationwide bipartisan AI Task Force, with the stated mission of “identifying emerging issues related to AI and safeguards that AI developers should follow to protect the public[.]” In addition, just this year, all 50 states have introduced AI-related legislation and 38 states have adopted about 100 different laws.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration and Congress have instead signaled a strong preference for a uniform, nationwide AI policy. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed a 10-year moratorium on states enforcing any state law or regulation addressing AI. This proposal was met with a swift response from a bipartisan group of 40 State AGs citing their strong concerns and the proposal ultimately being voted down 99-1 in the U.S. Senate. However, on December 11, President Trump signed an executive order, titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which asserts that “State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork for 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups.” We expect bipartisan opposition to this EO by State AGs heading into 2026 and anticipate providing more updates at that time.

What do these trends mean for you and your business?

• State AGs have a growing ability to shape public policy, particularly when banding together in large coalitions. Stay up to date of any broad pronouncements they make and how they may intersect with your industry or business’s own goals.

• In theory, the rapid increase in actions by State AGs against the federal government may detract from resources otherwise devoted to private-sector enforcement. However, private-sector enforcement remains strong, particularly in multistate suits that allow State AGs to conserve resources within individual offices. Whether this possibility gains traction is something to watch in 2026 and beyond.

• Even when dealing strictly with federal regulators, such as the SEC or DOJ, companies should always be mindful of the risk of dual enforcement tracks. Ensure that your counsel is prepared to navigate both levels of scrutiny simultaneously.

• Even though you may have procured a favorable result with federal regulatory agencies, this may not be the end of your enforcement story—as the ongoing HPE/Juniper example of State AG intervention demonstrates.

• Keep in mind that all but seven State AGs are elected officials. In addition to their mandate to represent the public interest, State AGs have an incentive to litigate or otherwise draw attention to hot-button issues that may be of interest to voters.