The State AG Dispatch

Welcome to Volume 2 of The State AG Dispatch, DLA Piper’s State Attorneys General (AGs) regular update on key regulatory, legislative, and enforcement developments across the United States.

As federal enforcement priorities shift, state AGs have expanded their authority, invested in internal capacity, and pursued matters independently – sometimes resulting in positions that differ from those of federal agencies.

This edition highlights key developments across:

• Antitrust and competition
  
  
• Artificial intelligence (AI)
  
  
• Data privacy and cybersecurity
  
  
• Consumer protection and product liability
  
  
• Digital assets and prediction markets
  
  
• Environment and energy 

For more information on any of these topics, please contact the authors.

Trend: State enforcement independence accelerates

A key theme of Q1 2026 is the growing independence of state AGs in enforcement. As federal agencies re-assess enforcement priorities, states are expanding internal capacity – hiring former federal officials, broadening investigative authority, and pursuing matters not taken up at the federal level.

This shift impacts various industries, driving heightened scrutiny of algorithmic pricing and digital markets, varying responses to federal pre-emption of state AI and online safety frameworks, continued expansion of youth-focused platform rules, growing negative-option enforcement, and environmental and public-health litigation.

In practice, states are reshaping the broader enforcement landscape. While AGs continue to partner with federal agencies in selected matters, they are increasingly proceeding independently or adopting adversarial postures – challenging federal settlements, intervening in Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decrees, and acting in areas with limited federal engagement. From matters related to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding to multi-state challenges and defenses of federal actions, states have asserted their own priorities with growing sophistication and resources.

How DLA Piper can help

DLA Piper advises businesses navigating parallel and increasingly divergent state enforcement frameworks. Our teams coordinate antitrust, AI governance, privacy, consumer protection, digital assets, and environmental strategies across jurisdictions. We assist with multi-state investigations and pre‑merger notification planning; design governance and compliance frameworks; and litigate matters involving state and federal jurisdiction conflict. DLA Piper supports organizations facing layered oversight, novel enforcement theories, rapidly evolving statutory landscapes, and related congressional scrutiny.

In related litigation, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed five lawsuits against television manufacturers, seeking temporary restraining orders and alleging unlawful consumer surveillance. DLA Piper represented TCL Industries in contested hearings, and, ultimately, the court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Antitrust and competition

What companies should know

• A favorable federal antitrust posture may no longer be a reliable indicator of overall exposure as state AGs increasingly set enforcement priorities
  
  
• Single-firm conduct, rather than mergers, is a leading focus, particularly in digital markets and healthcare
  
  
• Algorithmic and “surveillance” pricing is shifting from inquiry to statute, creating fragmented, fast-moving compliance regimes
  
  
• Federal merger clearance no longer ends deal risk as states intervene in DOJ settlements, adopt mini-Hart–Scott–Rodino (HSR) Act frameworks, and expand healthcare pre-merger notice requirements

Antitrust coordination, single-firm theories, and state enforcement independence

State AGs are intensifying oversight of digital markets, emphasizing algorithmic pricing, interoperability and data access, and platform design and disclosures. While states continue to coordinate with federal enforcers in some matters, they are increasingly acting independently amid perceptions of reduced federal merger enforcement activity. At the American Bar Association (ABA) Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting in March 2026, Illinois AG Antitrust Bureau Chief Elizabeth Maxeiner observed that this perception has accelerated state investment in antitrust capacity, including hiring former DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff.

New York’s inquiry into Instacart’s pricing experiments under the state’s Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act highlights scrutiny of data-driven and personalized pricing practices. Texas’s suit against Epic Systems alleges monopolization through restrictions on access to electronic health records and employee non-competes, reflecting a state enforcement playbook focused on interoperability and labor constraints in healthcare technology ecosystems. Multi-state participation alongside the FTC in subscription-billing litigation further signals broad AG interest in single-firm conduct and compliance-forward remedies. In parallel, California, Washington, and Colorado are enacting mini-HSR merger-notification regimes to scrutinize transactions that may not draw federal challenge independently.

Single firm conduct: Algorithmic pricing, interoperability, and platform design

Across sectors, state AGs are testing unilateral conduct theories that focus on rivals’ access and consumer outcomes rather than traditional price effects. Matters addressing pricing algorithms, access to critical interfaces and data, and product-design decisions increasingly frame these practices as exclusionary conduct. A multi-state settlement involving alleged algorithm-assisted rent-price coordination against a major landlord further underscores the AGs’ concern that algorithmic tools may facilitate parallel pricing in concentrated markets.

Surveillance pricing: From enforcement to statutes

State scrutiny of surveillance pricing accelerated sharply in Q1 2026, moving from investigative inquiries to legislation. On January 27, 2026, California AG Rob Bonta launched a California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)-based investigative sweep focused on grocers, hotels, and retailers that may use personal data to set individualized prices. On March 16, 2026, New York AG Letitia James advanced the One Fair Price Package, including the One Fair Price Act and the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act, which would restrict or ban surveillance pricing and electronic shelf labels in grocery and pharmacy settings while authorizing both AG and private enforcement. That same day, the New Jersey Senate Commerce Committee approved the Fair Price Protection Act, which aims to ban personal-data-based grocery pricing.

More than 40 surveillance-pricing bills across at least 24 states have been introduced in 2026 – already surpassing the full-year total for 2025 – reflecting rapid diffusion from enforcement theory to statute. 

State–federal dynamics and capacity building

States maintain ongoing collaboration with federal agencies through cooperative litigation efforts, including multi-state actions alongside the FTC addressing deceptive billing and dark-pattern cancellation practices, as well as coordinated healthcare enforcement initiatives addressing false certifications and post-settlement compliance. At the same time, state–federal relations continue to shift. 

At the ABA Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting, Illinois AG Antitrust Bureau Chief Elizabeth Maxeiner highlighted an AG coalition’s successful post‑approval challenge to Nexstar’s acquisition of Tegna. Maxeiner also noted ongoing state litigation against Live Nation. On April 15, 2026, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison and 33 other AGs won a jury verdict finding Live Nation and Ticketmaster had violated federal and state antitrust laws by suppressing competition and inflating costs for fans, artists, and venues nationwide.

States are also expanding investigative authority. On March 30, 2026, Washington enacted HB 2156, authorizing peace officer investigators within the AG’s office to serve warrants and investigate organized retail crime, wage theft, and financial fraud – materially expanding enforcement capacity beyond traditional consumer protection matters. On March 31, 2026, Washington enacted SB 5925, significantly broadening the AG’s civil-investigative-demand authority to cover constitutional violations, wage theft, discrimination, and other statutory regimes. 

Healthcare pre-merger notice beyond HSR

In Q1 2026, there was a notable expansion in healthcare pre-merger review regulations. Rhode Island adopted pre-merger notice rules for material medical group transactions, capturing sub-HSR deals and management service organization structures. These rules require disclosure of market share, payer mix, workforce impacts, and continuity-of-care plans. Additionally, California enacted SB 25, effective January 1, 2027, requiring companies that file federal HSR notifications to submit copies to the California AG if they meet state-specific thresholds, with penalties of up to USD25,000 per day for non-compliance. Additional states, including Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota, have advanced similar legislation, reinforcing a national trend toward broader AG oversight of healthcare consolidation.

AI

What companies should know

• Companies deploying AI could experience layered state obligations, earlier investigative demands, and technical scrutiny requiring regulatory governance and documentation
  
  
• States are advancing AI disclosure, safety, and governance requirements, even as federal policymakers debate pre-emption and national security reviews – leading to jurisdictional friction and compliance divergence
  
  
• AI enforcement is increasingly concrete: AGs are investigating specific models and features, particularly in generative AI affecting youth safety, sexual exploitation risks, and deceptive practices
  
  
• Design-centric theories dominate, with liability framed around model features, safeguards, training data, marketing representations, and governance structures
  
  
• States are examining non-profit and for-profit hybrid AI organizations, fiduciary oversight, and structural controls alongside product behavior

State AI governance and federal–state friction

States are advancing AI-specific oversight regimes – including disclosure obligations, safety governance, and expanded enforcement authority – even as federal policymakers debate pre-emption of state AI laws and national security reviews. New York has proposed creating an AI watchdog office with authority to enforce AI regulations and disclosure requirements. Washington’s AI Task Force has advanced recommendations calling for public transparency around training-data sources and enhanced governance for high-risk AI systems.

Meanwhile, Connecticut AG William Tong issued a comprehensive advisory detailing how existing civil rights, data privacy, consumer protection, and antitrust laws apply to AI systems. The advisory emphasizes that anti-discrimination laws apply equally to algorithmic and human decision-making and warns that AI-facilitated coordination, such as algorithmic pricing tools, may violate antitrust laws. These developments, combined with multi-state opposition to a federal ban on state AI laws, point to layered compliance obligations and sustained AG involvement in AI risk management.

Investigations and enforcement aimed at AI models

State enforcers are focusing their investigations on the model level. AG Bonta and AG Tong have each launched investigations into image-generation models for allegedly enabling large-scale production and dissemination of deepfakes and non-consensual intimate images. These investigations highlight increasing concern over generative AI, including risks to child safety, sexual exploitation, and deceptive practices. The actions reflect states’ continued assertion of authority to protect residents from AI-related harms and are consistent with late-2025 multi-state AG advocacy urging Congress to preserve state enforcement authority over AI risks. 

State oversight has also expanded to conversational AI products and their alleged risks to users, particularly concerning minors and vulnerable groups. Kentucky AG Russell Coleman has launched an investigation into a leading AI chatbot platform over alleged harms to minors arising from chatbot interactions. Florida AG James Uthmeier and AG Paxton have both launched ongoing investigations into several chatbot companies based on alleged deceptive marketing and mental‑health impacts on users. 

These enforcement actions are also influencing legislation: On May 1, 2026, Connecticut enacted bipartisan legislation, led by AG Tong, which introduced new chatbot requirements, including self-harm detection, AI-companion disclosure, and minor-access restrictions, alongside sweeping youth social media protections. The legislation mirrored the enforcement-to-legislation arc seen in surveillance pricing.

Youth safety and platform design enforcement

State AGs have moved beyond generalized platform-safety rhetoric to concrete pleadings and remedies aimed at addressing product design, age protections, and algorithmic transparency. Youth-safety and platform-design claims increasingly proceed under state Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) and child-protection statutes, with a focus on “addictive,” coercive, or harmful features.

Related actions by Florida and Iowa emphasize minors’ exposure to sexual content and exploitation risks despite safety representations, reflecting an approach that seeks to sidestep third-party-content immunity defenses. Hawaii AG Anne E. Lopez is also addressing “coercive design tactics” intended to maximize engagement, signaling AG interest in dopamine-driven patterns and age-appropriate defaults supported by empirical testing.

At a structural level, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed an Office of Digital Innovation, Governance, Integrity, and Trust to enforce AI disclosures, oversee digital safety, and issue guidance, indicating a potential for more formal oversight of algorithmic systems and attestation frameworks. Washington’s AI Task Force interim report reinforces momentum toward provenance, risk-management, and transparency norms for high-risk systems.

Governance note: Non-profit and for-profit hybrid structures

Beyond model outputs, state AGs are addressing AI governance and corporate structure. Delaware issued a Statement of No Objection facilitating OpenAI’s recapitalization and conversion to a public benefit corporation, highlighting the role of AGs in reviewing fiduciary duties, mission alignment, oversight committees, conflicts-of-interest policies, and disclosure of safety trade-off decisions. California separately signaled its own scrutiny of recapitalization terms and governance controls during review, underscoring that multi-state engagement may be required for complex AI organizational structures.

Data privacy and cybersecurity

What companies should know

• State AGs are intensifying privacy and cybersecurity enforcement, focusing on youth safety, simple opt-outs, and truthful disclosures about data practices
  
  
• Global Privacy Control (GPC) parity is a priority, with regulators testing propagation across accounts, devices, services, and mobile software development kits (SDKs) – not just web interfaces
  
  
• Connected devices, streaming, gaming, and vehicles are under scrutiny, particularly where telemetry, automatic content recognition (ACR), or cross-device data flows lack clear consent
  
  
• Platform-safety obligations are expanding, with child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and non-consensual minor (NCM) detection duties tied to vendor oversight, audit rights, and publishable transparency metrics

Privacy and cybersecurity enforcement outlook

In 2026, AGs are prioritizing youth-oriented design by conducting coordinated sweeps to test signal compliance, encourage simple opt-outs, and more directly link platform safety to public disclosures. Multi-state enforcement continues to test GPC parity across web and mobile environments, including its integration into SDKs and connected ecosystems, while baseline cybersecurity controls and accurate breach notifications remain core enforcement pillars.

CCPA enforcement cadence: Streaming, gaming, and connected vehicles

On February 11, 2026, AG Bonta announced a USD2.75 million settlement with The Walt Disney Company – the largest CCPA settlement to date. The investigation found fragmented opt out mechanisms across Disney’s streaming services, including device-specific toggles applied only to individual services or devices, limited web-form opt-outs, and GPC signals honored only on the originating device, even when users were logged into cross device accounts.

Under the settlement, Disney must implement account-level opt-outs, honor GPC at the account level, provide opt-out confirmations, and submit to a three-year monitoring program with frequent progress reports. The settlement confirms that privacy obligations follow identity, not interface, and that account-level linkage used for advertising must also be used to honor privacy elections.

California’s USD1.4 million settlement with Jam City reinforces the same compliance principles. The settlement requires in-app opt-out mechanisms for sales and sharing and prohibits selling or sharing data of teens aged 13 to 15 without opt-in, serving as a template for under-16 protections and platform parity.

States continue to test end-to-end GPC honoring, including parity between logged-in and guest experiences and propagation through mobile SDKs – an area state AGs have flagged in both investigations and litigation.

Platform safety: CSAM, NCM, and youth-focused controls

The FTC and Utah AG Derek Brown have imposed extensive requirements on adult-content platforms to detect and remove CSAM and NCM, including vendor diligence, age and consent verification, takedown service-level agreements, audit rights, and recurring third-party reviews. Comparable frameworks are emerging in youth-safety cases, with mandates on age estimation, retention limits for identity-proofs, human escalation for high-risk reports, and transparency metrics.

Several AGs are also tying platform safety to advertising practices, such as restrictions on personalized ads near sensitive content, and to vendor risk management, including background checks, staffing ratios, and response-time benchmarks.

State privacy laws and state-specific enforcement

New state laws and coalitions are sharpening enforcement. New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, effective November 10, 2025, requires disclosure when prices are individualized through algorithmic decision-making, intersecting directly with broader surveillance-pricing and competition trends. Comprehensive privacy statutes in Indiana (i.e., Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act) and Kentucky (i.e., Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act), effective January 1, 2026, expand consumer rights, opt-outs, and notice obligations, reinforcing the potential value of jurisdiction-specific compliance mapping.

Supply-chain cybersecurity and foreign-influence scrutiny

Texas has established a coordinated set of suits against smart-TV manufacturers over ACR data harvesting across streaming apps and connected devices. These actions highlight risks associated with vendor telemetry, cross-device data flows, alleged lack of meaningful consent, and opaque firmware-level data practices.

States are increasingly pairing privacy enforcement with supply-chain cybersecurity expectations, emphasizing firmware risk, software bill of materials (SBOM) transparency, rapid patching, and accurate breach-clock decisions – backed by contemporaneous documentation.

Consumer protection

What companies should know

• Subscription and pricing enforcement is accelerating, with states converging on negative-option rules, “junk-fee” theories, and “all-in” pricing requirements
  
  
• Buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) and consumer financing practices are under coordinated scrutiny, with underwriting, fee disclosures, dispute resolution, and credit-reporting impacts
  
  
• Review integrity, green claims, and endorsements are active enforcement fronts, with AGs expected to mirror the FTC’s civil-penalty posture under state UDAP laws
  
  
• Product-safety cases increasingly pair UDAP and failure-to-warn theories, particularly where health, family use, or vulnerable populations are implicated
  
  
• Cross-border e-commerce is a priority, with states linking product safety, data governance, and foreign-influence risks into unified enforcement actions

Subscriptions, negative options, and all-in pricing

On March 11, 2026, the FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on negative‑option marketing. States increased enforcement against subscriptions and automatic-renewal programs in 2025 and 2026, while expanding “total price” disclosure requirements. Multi-state actions addressed negative-option programs that lacked clear pre-renewal notices or easy cancellation, leading to a coalition settlement with an online retailer’s VIP membership program that provided automatic refunds and USD1 million to participating states. Pennsylvania separately announced a USD750,000 settlement with a mail-order subscription provider over negative-option features, underscoring the broad industry impact.

Regulatory developments reinforce the litigation trend. Massachusetts issued regulations, effective September 2, 2025, requiring all-in price advertising and enhanced auto-renewal disclosures, with AG guidance signaling active supervision. On November 24, 2025, Colorado issued price-transparency guidance requiring advertised residential-lease prices to include mandatory non-government charges. Together, these measures align with the National Association of Attorneys General’s focus on price transparency, subscription disclosures, and consent integrity heading into 2026.

GLP-1 transparency and pricing scrutiny

States are advancing transparency initiatives focused on glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, aiming to monitor use, outcomes, and spending while broadening oversight of device and drug-pricing communications. Several AGs have signaled interest in linking coverage and reimbursement decisions to real-world evidence and health equity metrics, as well as examining manufacturer hub programs for potential steering or inducement risks. Worker rights and Medicaid units are investigating downstream reimbursement and budget impacts of high-cost therapeutics, signaling increasingly integrated scrutiny across healthcare and consumer-protection authorities.

Financing and emerging consumer products: BNPL and add-on practices

AGs opened coordinated inquiries into BNPL providers, requesting information on underwriting standards, late-fee disclosures, dispute-resolution practices, credit reporting, and marketing to vulnerable consumers. Additional multi-state investigations are underway as activity increases around peak shopping seasons. In parallel, states are scrutinizing recurring-charge add-ons, loyalty-pricing representations, and cross-selling practices that obscure total cost. Several offices have also flagged consumer reporting and debt-collection practices as priority areas if federal supervision further contracts.

Deceptive endorsements, reviews, and platform integrity

The FTC warned ten companies about potential violations of its Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule, which prohibits fake reviews and manipulative review practices and authorizes civil penalties. The warning provides a template for state AG enforcement under parallel UDAP statutes. State AGs are likewise investigating green claims, sponsorship disclosures, and influencer marketing practices across e-commerce and social platforms. Substantiation files, review-moderation workflows, and advertiser-influencer contracts could be routine discovery requests in 2026.

Product claims, safety, and cross-border enforcement

Product-related AG suits continued, including Texas’s complaint alleging that acetaminophen manufacturers misrepresented product-safety risks for pregnant women and children. Beyond pharmaceuticals, food and household-goods marketing faced increased scrutiny tied to “family-size,” health attributes, and representations of ultra-processed foods, with state inquiries and private litigation proceeding in parallel. Continued pairing of UDAP claims with product-liability and failure-to-warn theories could continue.

AG Paxton filed suit against Shein US Services, LLC on February 20, 2026 – the fifth in a series of actions addressing companies with alleged ties to the Chinese government. Brought under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, the complaint alleges both 1) product-safety violations due to toxic chemicals in clothing marketed to newborns, pregnant women, and children and 2) deceptive data privacy practices, including failure to disclose potential access to US consumer data under Chinese national-intelligence and cybersecurity laws. Texas Governor Greg Abbott added Shein to the Texas Prohibited Technologies and Covered Applications List in January 2026. The suit seeks civil penalties of up to USD10,000 per violation, with enhanced penalties of up to USD250,000 per violation involving consumers aged 65 or older.

Paired with Texas’s coordinated enforcement against ACR-enabled smart TVs, the Shein action reflects a broader Texas posture that links consumer protection, product safety, data governance, and foreign-influence concerns into unified enforcement theories.

Digital assets and prediction markets

What companies should know

• Parallel state and federal exposure, along with criminal, civil, and supervisory risk, is evolving faster than statutory clarity
  
  
• State enforcement of prediction markets is escalating, moving from civil and administrative actions to criminal prosecution
  
  
• Courts remain split on federal pre-emption, creating a rapidly shifting, state-by-state compliance landscape
  
  
• Beyond prediction markets, state supervision of crypto custody, cybersecurity, stablecoins, and BNPL-adjacent products continues to diverge

Prediction markets and event contracts: Escalation to criminal enforcement

The long-standing tension between Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)-registered prediction-market operators and state gambling regulators came into focus in Q1 2026, raising questions about federal preemption and the classification of event contracts.

On March 17, 2026, Arizona AG Kris Mayes filed criminal charges against KalshiEX LLC in Maricopa County Superior Court – the first criminal prosecution brought against a CFTC-registered prediction-market operator offering event contracts in the US. The 20-count misdemeanor information includes four counts of election wagering and 16 counts of unlawful betting and wagering, spanning sports-related, political, legislative, and other contingent-event contracts. 

Arizona’s charging theory relied on the state’s broad statutory definition of wagering, which covers bets on “any contingent future event” – a position that directly conflicts with Kalshi’s argument that its contracts are federally regulated derivatives subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. The prosecution followed Kalshi’s March 12, 2026 filing of a federal pre-emption lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Gaming. The AG’s decision to proceed in state court could limit removal to federal court. 

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig publicly characterized the case as “a jurisdictional dispute and entirely inappropriate as a criminal prosecution.” On April 10, 2026, US District Judge Michael T. Liburdi granted a temporary restraining order against the State of Arizona and the criminal case brought by AG Mayes, finding that state gambling laws do not apply. The court further found that the CFTC “has clearly shown that it will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”

While the CFTC recently reaffirmed that it has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets, courts nationwide remain divided on the underlying pre-emption question. In February 2026, a Tennessee federal court granted Kalshi a preliminary injunction, while a Massachusetts state court issued an injunction against Kalshi during the same period. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments on that injunction on May 4, 2026. The broader litigation landscape now spans approximately 20 federal and state actions across at least 14 states.

Crypto, payments, and banking supervision

Outside prediction markets, state oversight of digital assets continues to diverge. Some AGs have cautioned against perceived federal overreach in the crypto sector, while New York and other states have advanced supervisory expectations around crypto custody, cybersecurity, and BNPL products. In parallel, the federal rescheduling of cannabis has intersected with state banking and anti-money laundering frameworks, renewing scrutiny of customer due diligence, suspicious activity report typologies, and risk-based onboarding for cannabis-related businesses.

Looking ahead, states may diverge on stablecoin reserve composition and attestation, wallet segregation, and marketing claims, with multi-state examinations increasingly testing Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) or UDAP theories across crypto, BNPL, and data-sharing practices – even where federal supervision remains unsettled.

Environment and energy

What companies should know

• Environmental risk now spans permitting volatility, remediation obligations, and competition-law exposure tied to sustainability initiatives
  
  
• Energy permitting and funding are restarting unevenly, reshaping project sequencing and financing assumptions
  
  
• Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) litigation is shifting from liability contests to operational remediation frameworks
  
  
• Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) collaboration faces sustained antitrust scrutiny, often paired with green-claims enforcement and board-level inquiries

Energy infrastructure and federal funding litigation

In early 2026, states secured a significant ruling invalidating a federal moratorium on offshore and onshore wind permitting, unlocking stalled projects and enabling near-term grid capacity additions. Federal agencies have since indicated that interconnection queues will prioritize shovel-ready projects – particularly those supported by completed technical studies and signed community benefit agreements – reshaping development sequencing and financing assumptions.

At the same time, AG coalitions obtained a final judgment invalidating a federal ten-percent cap on indirect costs for state energy programs and filed new litigation challenging freezes that affect billions of dollars in electric vehicle-charging and low-income solar funding. These actions have produced a patchwork of near-term program availability across states, with some funding streams restarting while others remain paused or subject to revised conditions.

PFAS litigation and remediation frameworks

PFAS litigation continues to broaden, encompassing upstream chemical manufacturers, downstream users, and public water systems. Enforcement trends increasingly favor tiered consent frameworks that incorporate phased sampling, clearly defined long-term maintenance responsibilities, and coordinated insurer participation to allocate remediation costs across supply chains.
Rather than single settlements, states are pushing toward durable remediation regimes with ongoing monitoring, reporting, and maintenance obligations – creating persistent cost-allocation challenges.

Sustainability-related collaboration under the antitrust lens

States have expanded antitrust scrutiny of sustainability-related coordination beyond headline climate alliances to include plastics and recycling standards, third-party certification programs, and investor-stewardship frameworks. Areas of focus include plastics-circularity roadmaps, “zero-waste” labeling criteria, and proxy-advisor scorecards, such as testing whether shared commitments, information exchanges, or standardized fees function as de facto agreements to restrict output, allocate markets, or raise competitors’ costs.

Several AG coalitions have sent investigative letters to environmental non-governmental organizations and industry consortia requesting governance documents, board materials, goal-setting protocols, and enforcement mechanisms. Parallel inquiries address corporate “100-percent recycled” claims and carbon neutrality, seeking substantiation files, lifecycle assessments, and communications with certifiers. Together, these actions signal a sustained willingness on the part of states to pair antitrust theories with consumer-protection scrutiny of environmental and green claims.