State AGs Expand ‘Affordability’ Focus, Increasing Potential Scrutiny of Pricing and Competition

State attorneys general have turned their focus to “affordability” concerns in recent months, including California announcing an Affordability Response Team in June 2026. Consistent with that focus, states appear more likely to investigate and potentially prosecute business conduct perceived as impacting consumer costs across several areas—from grocery prices, housing and rental prices, and gas prices to consumer fees, banking fees, and utility rates—using antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Businesses should be mindful of this enforcement focus and how it may lead to greater scrutiny of business practices related to pricing and competition.

In the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, in particular, enforcers may be eager to show that they are investigating or challenging what they deem to be unlawful consumer price increases and fees.

STATE AG FOCUS ON AFFORDABILITY

In response to recent reports on consumer sentiment showing US consumers are concerned about the high cost of living, state and federal regulators are responding with new initiatives targeting affordability.

On June 8, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an Affordability Response Team that will “investigate and go after practices that are unlawfully raising costs.” Per the California announcement, the initiative will “deploy [the California] DOJ’s tools” in several broad focus areas encompassing much of the consumer economy, including as related to costs for groceries, gas, utilities, housing, insurance, healthcare, childcare, education, entertainment, financial protection, protecting workers’ earnings, and preventing scams.

California’s AG is far from the only state AG focused on affordability issues. Connecticut AG William Tong, the current president of the National Association of Attorneys General, chose “Driving Down Costs for American Families” as his 2026 NAAG Presidential Initiative: “For years, American families have been squeezed by high costs from all directions. This year, my Presidential Initiative will address how attorneys general can harness our law enforcement authority to drive down those costs.”

The “affordability agenda” is not limited to the attorneys general of so-called “blue states.” The Texas Attorney General’s Office announced that it is cooperating with the US Department of Justice to investigate antitrust concerns in the meatpacking industry “to Protect Texas Cattle Ranchers and Lower Grocery Prices” and also has joined the multistate coalition suing Live Nation and Ticketmaster over alleged antitrust violations resulting in higher ticket prices and fees, as did many other Republican AGs.

Also this year, the Indiana and Georgia AGs have both warned against the potential failure to pass on savings related to suspensions of their gas taxes, and Georgia also flagged potential price gouging related to wildfires.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESSES

Businesses with consumer-facing pricing and fees should be aware of these new efforts and should bear in mind the following considerations:

Be Mindful of State Antitrust and Consumer Laws and Monitor New Legislation

Most states have their own antitrust laws that mirror federal statutes, in addition to laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) in commerce and other consumer protection statutes. States can also bring lawsuits under federal antitrust laws.

These laws, together with state anti–price gouging laws, tend to be the primary tools in the state AG enforcement toolkit focused on affordability concerns. However, states continue to  adopt new legislation on pricing. For example, in the last year multiple states have adopted state laws restricting certain algorithmic and/or personalized pricing practices.

Public Attention Can Impact Investigative Approach

Investigations that might otherwise have been relatively routine or unremarkable may face a greater risk of becoming more highly publicized or politicized, particularly heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Investigative authorities may seek to issue press releases or other publicity citing their actions as evidence of their concern on behalf of consumers.

During higher-profile investigations, investigators may require lengthier inquiries and more substantial document discovery than would otherwise be expected based solely on the nature of the alleged conduct under investigation. Press attention can also sometimes make it more challenging for businesses to negotiate resolutions to ongoing government inquiries, requiring a nuanced understanding of the priorities and constraints facing regulators and stakeholders.

Businesses should also be prepared for the possibility of press reaching out for comment in response to action by regulators. This could result in employees who are not used to handling press inquiries being asked on-the-record questions about allegations made by government entities. A best practice is to inform employees in advance how to respond to press contacts and make sure they are trained to route press inquiries to appropriate recipients within the organization, such as leadership or public relations staff.

Consider Appropriate Compliance Steps to Mitigate Risk

Businesses should comply with their legal obligations and consider how best to maintain appropriate internal documentation. For example, if there is a decision to increase prices, it may be beneficial to keep records showing rising input costs, such as commodity and fuel prices, tariffs, and other relevant factors to price changes. Businesses should assess any appropriate disclosures about fees charged to consumers to avoid allegations of violating state or federal law UDAP prohibitions.

Companies should also continue to make their pricing decisions unilaterally; agreements among competitors to fix prices or output are treated as per se unlawful under the antitrust laws and can lead to serious, potentially criminal penalties. In the event of emergencies, such as extreme weather events or unprecedented supply crises, businesses should remain cognizant of state laws on price gouging.

Prepare for Potential Inquiries as Needed

Businesses should be aware of what and what not to do if they receive a regulatory or investigative inquiry, such as a civil investigative demand, an investigative subpoena, or even a grand jury subpoena.

 A business contacted by a state attorney general’s office, the DOJ, the Federal Trade Commission, or any other enforcement authority—even for a phone interview—should consult with legal counsel to understand the ramifications of the agency request, including considerations about when and how any responses should be made, consistent with the agency’s authority and the recipient’s legal obligations.

Counsel experienced in responding to government investigations can help recipients navigate an investigative process, including by protecting the legal and constitutional rights of recipients, mitigating undue burdens resulting from investigative demands, and negotiating and advocating for reasonable and appropriate resolutions.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Morgan Lewis’s state attorneys general practice handles the full scope of antitrust, consumer protection, and related matters, with experience in standalone state AG investigations and litigation as well as joint state and federal investigations and litigation. Our practice is closely monitoring the evolving priorities of state enforcers related to affordability. Visit our state attorneys general practice page for more information.