The Spring Meeting is the largest gathering of competition, consumer protection, and data privacy profes­sionals globally, with lawyers, academics, economists, enforcers, journalists, and students from around the world. During the 2026 Spring Meeting, Axinn associates attended thought leadership panels to capture key insights. Their report of the takeaways from four panels discussing trends in state and private enforcement appears below. It covers the panels, “A New State of Mind,” “Briefing with State Enforcers,” “Into the Breach: Private and State Merger Challenges,” and “The Dawn of State HSRs.”

To read all the articles in the series, click here.

State and private enforcement is playing an increasingly prominent role in shaping U.S. antitrust law. Four Spring Meeting panels explored the impact of such enforcement in the antitrust context.

A New State of Mind

As state enforcement is exploding and diverging from federal enforcement actions, a panel of two state enforcers from California and Connecticut, a former deputy assistant attorney general for the United States Department of Justice (“U.S. DOJ”), and a corporate general counsel provided their views on how to navigate emerging state law issues. The overarching theme echoed by the panelists was, paraphrasing Justice Louis Brandeis, that the states are the “laboratories of democracy” and now of competition. 

The two state enforcers on the panel made it clear that they foresee states increasing their independent competition enforcement by continuing to pass new and experimental legislation as well as pursuing meritorious lawsuits irrespective of federal enforcement decisions. The panelists also discussed the different institutional priorities, statutory frameworks, and market realities that determine whether a state enforcer is going to join or initiate a particular action. The panelists said such considerations include but are not limited to: (1) the presence or absence of direct evidence, (2) the impact of the alleged conduct/transaction in the state, (3) the presence or absence of federal enforcement (though not dispositive), (4) whether another state(s) would be a more efficient enforcer, (5) resource constraints, and (6) whether there are any active or known under-consideration private actions. The panelists were clear in saying that, although sometimes state coalitions split across party lines, that divide does not exist in every case, citing the Live Nation / Ticketmaster trial and Nexstar / Tenga merger challenges as examples.

The panelists also discussed at length the impact diverging state enforcement regimes will have on businesses. Some argued that variety among the states ensures that states can address individualized state issues in a targeted manner that need not align with the approaches of other states or the enforcement priorities of the federal government. Other panelists argued that increased divergence in statutory frameworks is harmful to businesses. Particularly where there are laws that are in direct conflict, such as California’s and Texas’s regulation of ESG, companies operating in both states find themselves in a position where complying with the law in one state is violating the law in the other state. 

Briefing With the State Enforcers

A panel of state enforcers from Texas, New York, Minnesota, and Utah convened to discuss recent antitrust litigation and the increasing role states are playing in patrolling antitrust violations. 

The panelists discussed the benefits of litigating cases alleging localized harm in state court when the state is suing individually. State attorneys general (“AGs”) have greater familiarity litigating in state court, and proceedings are often faster. The state AGs said they were more likely to go it alone when bringing per se claims that do not require detailed economic analysis to demonstrate the existence of an unlawful agreement. Antitrust litigation is notorious for its complexity, resource intensity, and lengthiness. Enforcers are likely to continue turning to state courts to try to quickly resolve per se cases.

The panel also discussed how recent updates to state laws have empowered state enforcement. Thomas York of Texas mentioned the recent update to Texas’s antitrust law, giving the state the ability to assess a civil penalty of up to $30 million, in addition to attorneys’ fees, for a violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act. York noted that damages can be difficult for state plaintiffs to measure, and that a penalty is a powerful “stick” to deter anticompetitive conduct without a burdensome financial inquiry. More updates to state law may be coming: a sweeping update to New York’s Donnelly Act was proposed in 2025, and the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act is pending in a number of states.

Into the Breach: Private and State Merger Challenges

A panel of lawyers representing plaintiffs, state enforcers, and defendants discussed a common warning: companies minimize the risk of state and private merger challenges at their peril. In the current environment, federal merger enforcement has been quieter, and federal enforcers have seemed more amenable to reaching settlements in merger challenges. But, as has happened in the past, when federal merger enforcement may be less rigorous or transparent, states and private plaintiffs will often step in and fill this gap. 

The panelists noted there has been a long history of states and federal enforcers working together on merger challenges, including recently with Anthem / Cigna and Aetna / Humana. But even when federal enforcers are involved, states remain focused on a potential merger’s particular effects in their state and will pursue additional state-specific remedies as needed. For example, in connection with the United Healthcare/DaVita merger, after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) negotiated its own remedy, the Colorado AG negotiated a consent decree addressing its concerns about anticompetitive effects in the Colorado Springs Area. Because healthcare mergers often have very localized effects, this is likely to be an area of continued state focus, particularly given the pre-transaction notification requirements for industries like healthcare in many jurisdictions. 

The panel also discussed how private plaintiffs may pursue merger challenges that enforcers lacked the resources or desire to pursue. For example, in the landmark Steves and Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 19-1397 (4th Cir.), the court affirmed in relevant part a post-closing divestiture order that had been issued following a merger challenge by a private plaintiff who was both customer and competitor to the merging parties. There, the U.S. DOJ had weighed in, via an amicus brief, that its decision not to challenge the transaction should not be seen as confirmation of its view that the transaction is neutral or pro-competitive. The panelists discussed how standing often presents a challenge for private plaintiffs pre-closing. But they also noted that companies should keep in mind that private plaintiffs can bring a post-merger damages claim—including potentially a class claim—if a consummated transaction results in, for instance, higher prices. 

The Dawn of State HSRs

The panel included representatives from the Washington and Colorado AGs’ offices, who provided a 7-month update on their new state HSR regimes. Those states require companies that make federal HSR filings to share those filings with Washington and Colorado if the companies have a sufficient nexus to those states (i.e., a principal place of business in those states or more than $26.8 of in-state sales related to the goods and services in the transaction). 

The state AG representatives explained that the new laws allow them access to HSR filings directly and early, sometimes before the public announcement of the planned merger, which they argue has helped expedite their state-level investigations. However, the state AG representatives conceded that these laws do not appear to have enabled states to identify deals of concern that were not already publicly announced. It also remains unclear to what extent each state is able to review each deal, given the high volume of filings and limited resources. To date, Washington has received around 200 filings and Colorado nearly 250. 

Despite potential resource constraints, several other states are following in the footsteps of Washington and Colorado. California recently adopted a substantially similar state HSR law, and 4 additional states and the District of Columbia have similar laws pending. The state AG representatives also emphasized that state AGs are not scared of merger enforcement, with the Colorado representative pointing out that they are pushing forward with the Live Nation / Ticketmaster lawsuit despite the recent U.S. DOJ settlement.