Staying Ahead of State Attorneys General Enforcement Trends

As federal enforcement and regulatory actions evolve under the current administration, state attorneys general (State AGs) are taking an active role in responding to the changes, with support or challenges in alignment with their objectives and constituencies.

This Insight explores the current dynamic between state and federal authorities, emerging enforcement trends, coordinated litigation strategies, and key implications for businesses.

The Federal-State Dynamic

With the shift to single-party control over the executive branch and both chambers of the US Congress, Democratic and Republican State AGs are increasingly positioning themselves as counterweights to, or supporters of, federal actions. This dynamic is not new—State AGs from the opposing party frequently act to fill perceived regulatory voids or challenge executive actions, a trend observed since the Reagan administration. 

State AGs have significant autonomy to act on behalf of their states and citizens, including standing to litigate in both state and federal courts. State AGs use procedural tools such as investigative subpoenas and civil investigative demands to build cases that are strategically timed, well resourced, and difficult to remove to federal court. 

For businesses, particularly those in industries that operate nationally but face locally grounded enforcement tactics, these factors translate into more scrutiny and less predictability when it comes to regulatory compliance, risk management, and legal strategy.

Trends and Areas of Anticipated Enforcement

State AGs often deploy consumer protection statutes as their go-to enforcement vehicle.  Known as Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) laws, these statutes exist in all 56 states and territories and can carry hefty statutory penalties per violation without requiring proof of actual damages. This makes them a powerful and flexible tool for AGs to pursue a wide range of conduct.  Political subdivisions such as municipalities are likewise well-equipped to pursue litigation against businesses through consumer protection ordinances, and at times, both State AGs and political subdivisions partner with private plaintiffs’ counsel.

State AGs have historically been focused on, or are turning their attention to, the following areas:

• Consumer protection: AGs have been targeting so-called “junk fees,” subscription traps (e.g., “click-to-cancel” rules), and deceptive packaging practices (e.g., shrinkflation).  AGs also use UDAP laws to pursue allegedly deceptive marketing, putting into play everything from representations about the integrity of a business’ supply chain to the content of its products.  Businesses should expect enforcement that stretches traditional UDAP boundaries.
• Antitrust: From healthcare and pharmaceuticals to tech platforms and AI-driven pricing tools, State AGs continue to bring high-profile antitrust cases under both federal and state laws. The 2023 federal Venue Selection Act further empowers State AGs to maintain control over venue and litigation strategy.
• Social media and mental health: State AGs are pursuing internet addiction and youth mental health claims, not only against platforms but also targeting companies that use social media to market to vulnerable populations such as minors, the elderly, and the disabled.
• DEI and ESG: There is growing tension between red and blue states regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. The growing conflict creates a lack of clarity for businesses.
• Plastics and environmental claims: Emerging State AG actions are targeting microplastics, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (so-called “forever chemicals”), and product mislabeling. The California and New York AGs are leading this charge through the use of nuisance, environmental, and UDAP laws.
• Prescription Drugs and GLP-1s: With counterfeit versions of popular weight loss drugs under scrutiny, State AGs are engaging the Food & Drug Administration and state pharmacy boards while investigating the entire supply chain, from manufacturers to pharmacy benefit managers.
• Food and beverage: AG enforcement around labeling, health claims, and applicable state legislation (e.g., California’s Proposition 65) remain hot-button areas, with increasing interest in shifting the cost of recycling and waste disposal to producers.
• Privacy and artificial intelligence (AI): Absent a comprehensive federal privacy or AI law, states are asserting themselves via new statutes, such as California's Generative Artificial Intelligence: Training Data Transparency Act, Colorado’s Concerning Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems Act, and the Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act, as well as existing UDAP authority.

Coordinated Litigation

State AG enforcement actions are often multidimensional. They may proceed individually, join multistate task forces, or coordinate filings to exert pressure on a common target. Municipalities and private plaintiffs often bring litigation following State AG enforcement actions (or, sometimes, State AGs follow them).  As such, businesses are increasingly encountering a mix of the following:

• Multidistrict litigation (MDL): Federal court coordination for cases with diversity or federal question jurisdiction
• State coordinated actions: Similar to MDL but conducted within state systems, these are generally non-removable and present logistical challenges across local rules and venues
• Standalone AG litigation: Often pursued in state courts under state law, which gives State AGs maximum control and procedural advantage

For corporate defendants, these overlapping formats can mean fighting simultaneous battles on multiple fronts with duplicative discovery, differing procedural rules, and mismatched timelines. Coordinating discovery across jurisdictions, managing document repositories, and navigating extended and potentially repeat depositions are just a few potential hurdles.

Implications for Businesses

The uncertainty and conflicting priorities among the states on the one hand and between certain states and the federal government on the other create challenges for businesses. The convergence of State AGs, municipalities, and private plaintiffs creates a near-constant risk of scrutiny across multiple axes of a company’s operations.

To mitigate these risks, businesses should do the following:

• Evaluate policies and practices: Ensure that all public-facing representations, whether in advertisements, federal filings, or on product labels, are accurate, verifiable, and appropriately qualified
• Evaluate supply chain integrity: Examine whether upstream vendors and suppliers provide sufficient warranties or disclosures, particularly on ESG, labor, and sustainability practices
• Strengthen privacy and AI governance: Proactively prepare for compliance with emerging state privacy and AI laws by creating frameworks that account for ongoing changes and potentially contradictory requirements
• Understand political subdivisions: Municipalities, as well as counties, tribal governments, and even school districts, are increasingly filing their own lawsuits and may pass local laws enabling enforcement authority, even when state law does not—knowing who has standing and how litigation authority intersects between cities and State AGs can be a game changer

Business leaders should consider embedding risk mitigation into strategic decision-making. Doing so can not only reduce exposure but also help businesses respond swiftly and credibly when scrutiny arises.

STAY INFORMED

Visit our US Administration Policies and Priorities resource center and subscribe to our mailing list for the latest on programming, guidance, and current legal and business developments involving the Trump-Vance administration.