DOJ, FTC Call on State Attorneys General to Investigate High Gas Prices

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are urging state attorneys general to take a more active role in investigating retail gasoline prices. In a recent call-to-action letter (the Letter), the DOJ Antitrust Division and FTC encouraged states to investigate and, where appropriate, bring enforcement actions against retailers for potential antitrust, consumer protection, and price-gouging violations affecting petroleum markets and retail gasoline prices.

According to the Letter, which emphasizes that market volatility does not suspend antitrust laws or state consumer protection statutes, the Antitrust Division and the FTC are closely monitoring petroleum markets amid declining crude oil prices and elevated gasoline prices. The Letter follows a June 2026 Truth Social post by US President Donald Trump highlighting the disparity between retail gasoline prices and “sharply lower” crude oil prices, while accusing oil companies of “gouging” customers.[1]

Two weeks earlier, in a June 11 letter to major oil companies, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse questioned “why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump” despite oil costs per barrel dropping from $138.21 on April 1, 2026, to $98.29 on June 1, 2026, with no proportional decline in the national average gasoline price per gallon, which remained at $4.16 as of June 9, 2026.

FEDERAL AND STATE ENFORCEMENT FOCUS

The Letter identifies several enforcement tools that could be used to address improper retail fuel pricing conduct. DOJ points to the Antitrust Division’s criminal authority over competitor agreements to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets, while DOJ and the FTC also have civil authority to challenge unreasonable restraints of trade, monopolization, and unfair or deceptive practices. For state AGs, the Letter is broader still, urging them to join DOJ and the FTC in investigating illegal practices and encouraging the use of “all tools available under your state laws,” such as state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, including price-gouging laws where available, to address pricing conduct in the absence of a federal price-gouging framework.

The agencies cite recent FTC enforcement in fuel retail markets, including a merger matter requiring divestitures of gas and diesel stations, as evidence that fuel pricing remains an active enforcement priority.[2] The DOJ press release accompanying the Letter also emphasizes state-federal coordination, with Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward stating that the Antitrust Division will work with state law enforcement partners and use “all available tools” to address unlawful market manipulation.[3]

The Letter follows recent administration statements urging faster pass-through of declining crude-oil prices to consumers. President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent both indicated that the administration is monitoring retail gasoline prices, with Bessent stating that gasoline retailers were being given “a little bit of a nudge” and told “we’re watching them.”[4]

Although federal and state antitrust enforcers frequently coordinate on investigations, the relationship between the federal government and state attorneys general has at times involved differing enforcement priorities and jurisdictional disagreements. Against that backdrop, the agencies’ invitation for states to pursue their own state laws underscores the importance of state enforcement resources and signals the meaningful role that parallel state investigations may play in this initiative.

STATE PRICE-GOUGING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

For companies operating in multiple states, this raises the prospect of parallel inquiries under different legal standards, particularly in states with price-gouging laws tied to periods of market disruption or emergency.

The Letter expressly asks state AGs to publicize reporting channels and to invoke their state antitrust, consumer protection, and price-gouging statutes where applicable. Consistent with prior practice, that may include consumer alerts and complaint portals, civil investigative demands or subpoenas, multistate coordination, and, where the facts support it, civil enforcement actions or settlements. California, for example, maintains a dedicated fuel-price complaint portal and previously announced a $50 million settlement resolving allegations that fuel-trading firms manipulated California gasoline spot-market prices.[5] The Florida Attorney General’s Office similarly states that it monitors gasoline markets with the FTC and has filed lawsuits where evidence points to collusion.[6][7]

KEY COMMON LEGAL RISKS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Were the DOJ, the FTC, or a state AG to open an investigation, they likely will seek pricing files, cost inputs, communications, and records concerning any pricing software or market-data sources used in retail pricing decisions. Companies should be prepared to identify who had pricing authority, what information was considered, and how pricing decisions were made independently.

Companies also should assess whether relevant materials are preserved, whether vendor contracts and pricing-tool documentation can be collected quickly, and whether business records support a consistent explanation for recent price movements.

Companies should evaluate the following recurring risk areas across pricing practices and channels:

• The Letter may increase the likelihood of federal, state, and private scrutiny of retail fuel pricing, particularly where state AGs have price-gouging, consumer protection, or state antitrust authority
• There is no general nationwide price-gouging statute, but many states prohibit excessive pricing during emergencies or market disruptions
  • Multistate operators may face different triggers, standards, and remedies by jurisdiction
• Use of third-party pricing software, competitor data, benchmarking, or automated pricing recommendations may draw scrutiny from enforcers and private plaintiffs, even where pricing decisions are independently made
• Pricing decisions that are not supported by contemporaneous records, such as supply costs, logistics, inventory, taxes, labor, and local market conditions, may be harder to defend in an investigation or litigation
• While the Letter focuses on antitrust and consumer protection laws, federal and state False Claims Acts also may be implicated where fuel or energy sales involve government purchasers

BEST PRACTICES

To reduce investigation and litigation risk, companies should consider the following actions:

• Confirm that pricing decisions are made independently and supported by ordinary-course business factors
• Assess how pricing software, market data, and automated recommendations are used, documented, and controlled
• Reinforce rules on competitor contacts, trade association activity, benchmarking, and internal discussions of market pricing
• Be mindful of potential False Claims Act exposure when selling to the government
• Identify response teams, preserve relevant records, and ensure that government inquiry and litigation-response protocols are current