News, Developments and Practical Advice from Antitrust Leaders

Antitrust Advocate

Home | Antitrust Advocate

On January 29, 2026, the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section hosted “Diverse Perspectives: Antitrust in a Changing World.” The event brought together global competition enforcers, practitioners, economists and policymakers for candid dialogue on the evolving antitrust landscape.

core/paragraph

Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin’s participation was particularly timely; he recently concluded his tenure as New Jersey’s Attorney General (AG), during which he spearheaded the creation of a dedicated Antitrust Litigation and Competition Enforcement Section – an institutional shift reflecting the state’s expanded commitment to competition enforcement. His remarks at the conference were notably candid, unfiltered by the constraints of elected office, and offered an inside view of how states regard their growing role in antitrust enforcement.

Platkin emphasized that state enforcement will continue to be an indispensable component of the national antitrust framework, with state attorneys general often operating in bipartisan alignment on matters that resonate strongly with constituents. He noted that although antitrust cases can be legally complex, the issues at their core – affordability, market fairness and consumer choice – are deeply relatable to the public.

Despite New Jersey having one of the country’s largest Attorney General offices, Platkin highlighted that the state historically lacked a dedicated antitrust division – not for lack of statutory authority, but because civil enforcement priorities lay elsewhere. His administration reversed that posture by establishing a permanent antitrust enforcement unit, reflecting the increasing complexity and local economic impact of modern competition issues. He observed that past assumptions – that antitrust was “too complicated” for states and best left to federal agencies – no longer reflect current market realities. States now view themselves as essential partners in scrutinizing market conduct, including high-technology sectors, digital platforms, data-driven business models, and markets affecting public welfare such as healthcare and housing.

Throughout his remarks, Platkin returned to a central theme – the intersection of technology and affordability will define enforcement priorities for years to come. This includes:

Digital Platforms and Emerging Technologies. Platkin cited rising concerns around dominant digital intermediaries, online ecosystems, and markets in which data plays an outsized role. He also discussed algorithmic pricing – particularly in housing and other consumer markets – as an area ripe for scrutiny.

core/list-item

core/list

Child and Youth Protection. State AGs are increasingly focused on how digital services affect minors, including risks posed by data collection, addictive design, or targeted content. These issues, though often framed as consumer protection matters, can intersect with market power concerns where platform dominance magnifies harm.

Healthcare and Prescription Drug Markets. Platkin identified healthcare as a continuing point of emphasis, particularly for hospital consolidation and pharmaceutical pricing.

Student Debt and Affordability Markets. He noted that consumer-facing markets tied to affordability – including education financing – remain areas of interest as states evaluate potential anticompetitive practices that burden households.

Platkin stated that state AGs intend to remain vigorous enforcement partners with federal agencies, but should federal priorities shift, states are prepared to step in, not retreat. He analogized this dynamic to environmental protection, where state enforcement has historically intensified to fill perceived federal gaps.

Yet Platkin acknowledged the practical reality that states cannot match federal enforcement resources, especially in nationwide technology cases requiring extensive economic, technical and discovery capabilities. For that reason, multistate coalitions remain the preferred model. Certain states, he observed, will continue to serve as “first movers” or de facto co-regulators in specific industries. As one example, he referenced how some large states’ environmental or regulatory agencies shape national standards through their market influence. He further noted that due to resource constraints, states will continue relying on outside counsel under contingency fee arrangements, a tool that has helped smaller jurisdictions pursue significant antitrust actions that would otherwise be out of reach.

Historically, many states have prioritized post-conduct litigation over pre-merger review, but Platkin expects that to shift. With enhanced internal capabilities and a renewed focus on consumer affordability, state-level merger review is likely to expand, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals and technology.

This trend aligns with predictions from national antitrust practitioners; states increasingly view merger enforcement not as an adjunct to federal review, but as an independent mandate to protect their own markets.

Federal District Court Judge Richard Boulware (D.Nev.), also a conference speaker, asked Platkin whether expanded state enforcement might lead to divergent antitrust jurisprudence between federal and state courts. Platkin responded that divergence is not only possible but also likely, due largely to the U.S. Congress’s failure to keep pace with technological change. State AGs and state courts have long traditions of active consumer protection enforcement, and states remain resolutely opposed to federal attempts to preempt state competition laws. He observed that divergence is particularly probable where cases are not consolidated into a single federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), allowing multiple state courts to develop distinct legal interpretations tailored to local statutes and standards.

Platkin summarized the future of antitrust enforcement in one unifying principle – the most urgent and bipartisan competition policy issues are those where technology intersects with affordability. From digital markets and healthcare to housing and education, state AGs see antitrust as a crucial tool to protect consumers in rapidly evolving markets. The 2026 ABA Diverse Perspectives conference underscored that antitrust law is entering a period of profound evolution – driven not only by federal policy shifts but also by increasingly assertive and strategically empowered state enforcers. Platkin’s remarks reflected both the challenges and opportunities ahead for a system in which states are no longer secondary players but full partners in shaping the future of competition policy.

Philadelphia

New York

Partner

Julian D. Perlman

State Enforcement in a Changing Antitrust Landscape: Reflections on Matthew J. Platkin’s Remarks at the ABA Antitrust Section’s 2026 Diverse Perspectives Conference