New Sheriffs in Town: Local DA Joins Wave of State Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
In Short
The Situation: On October 14, 2026, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr. announced the formation of the office's first Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force (the "Task Force"), targeting antitrust violations, health care fraud, and other consumer fraud by corporations and their executives.
The Result: The Task Force adds a local prosecutor to a growing roster of state enforcers—including New York, California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Colorado—that are strengthening criminal antitrust statutes, adding prosecutors, and bringing cases that historically would have been left to the Department of Justice ("DOJ").
Looking Ahead: Companies should no longer treat criminal antitrust exposure as purely a federal matter. Compliance programs, investigation-response plans, and risk assessments should account for state and local prosecutors that act independently of, or in coordination with, federal authorities.
Criminal antitrust enforcement has long been the near-exclusive province of DOJ's Antitrust Division. That is changing. Not only is the recent establishment of the National Fraud Enforcement Division and subsequent reorganization of corporate enforcement at DOJ affecting criminal antitrust enforcement, state and local changes are contributing to a shifting landscape. Although 48 states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting criminal prosecution of antitrust offenses, state enforcement historically has been limited. Over the past two years, however, state attorneys general have modernized their statutes, expanded their staffs, coordinated with one another, and begun bringing criminal cases. The Manhattan District Attorney's new Task Force is the latest—and, as a county-level prosecutor, a notable—entrant into this field.
The Manhattan Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force
The new Task Force will focus on complex investigations of fraud and misconduct by corporations and corporate executives, expressly including antitrust violations, with the stated goals of holding organizations "fully accountable for corporate criminality," deterring industry-wide misconduct, and catalyzing systemic reform. The Task Force's emphasis on entity-level accountability, combined with access to financial intelligence tools, suggests that companies operating in Manhattan—including in financial services, health care, real estate, and consumer-facing industries—could face investigations originating outside the traditional federal channel.
A Broader State Trend
This development is consistent with a broader trend. Several states have moved to bring their criminal antitrust penalties closer to those under the federal Sherman Act:
- California. The Cartwright Act was recently amended to enhance criminal fines and add civil penalties. The new law raised maximum corporate criminal fines from $1 million to $6 million and increased individual fines from $250,000 to $1 million per violation. In addition to the increased criminal fines, the new law introduced civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation in actions brought by the California Attorney General.
- New York. Pending legislation (S. 335/A. 2015) would amend the Donnelly Act to raise maximum corporate fines to $100 million and individual fines to $1 million (alongside potential four-year prison terms) and extend the limitations period from three to five years.
- Colorado. The Colorado Antitrust Act of 2023 increased criminal penalties to $5 million per violation, expanded the Attorney General's authority to demand information from any person (including witnesses and third parties), and clarified that the limitations period runs from the last act in a series constituting the offense.
More Resources and Coordination
In addition, states are ramping up resources and institutional capacity. Minnesota and New Jersey have created dedicated antitrust units. New York has opened new antitrust positions, and Massachusetts hired a seasoned cartel prosecutor from DOJ's Antitrust Division. State attorneys general have also formed a working group focused on criminal antitrust enforcement that coordinates strategy and shares information. One stated area of focus is developing detection tools to substitute for the leniency programs that few states have.
Cases on the Docket
Rhetoric is turning into prosecutions. New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Ohio have brought criminal antitrust cases in recent years. The Ohio Attorney General's Office, for example, obtained an indictment of an individual for criminal bid rigging and is actively prosecuting the case. California's senior antitrust enforcer has pledged to reinvigorate criminal prosecution under the Cartwright Act—which the state has not pursued criminally in more than 25 years—and has identified state procurement as a likely area of scrutiny. Local labor markets, including wage-fixing and no-poach conduct, are another natural fit for state prosecutors.
The Federal Backdrop
These developments come amid concerns about the scope and consistency of federal criminal antitrust enforcement. State and local enforcers have sought to fill this perceived vacuum and have also shown a willingness to step in when federal enforcers step back, as when state enforcers took over the civil prosecution of Live Nation and Ticketmaster after DOJ settled during trial. At the same time, a significant case investigated and prosecuted under state law may get the attention of federal enforcers, requiring a holistic approach and consideration of the right way to manage antitrust risk.
Five Key Takeaways
- Criminal antitrust risk is now multijurisdictional. State attorneys general and, with the Manhattan Task Force, local prosecutors may investigate price fixing, bid rigging, market allocation, and potentially labor-market collusion independent of DOJ.
- Penalties at the state level are rising. California's amended Cartwright Act increased liability significantly, and New York's pending Donnelly Act amendments contemplate corporate fines of up to $100 million per violation.
- Antitrust compliance programs should be reviewed now, with particular attention to state-specific statutes, public procurement activity, and hiring and compensation practices, especially for companies with operations concentrated in New York, California, Ohio, Colorado, Massachusetts, or Minnesota.
- The first notice of a state criminal investigation may be a subpoena or search warrant. Companies should confirm that their dawn-raid and subpoena-response protocols cover state and local authorities.
- State leniency is limited. Because few states offer leniency programs comparable to DOJ's, companies weighing self-reporting should evaluate cross-jurisdictional exposure and coordinate federal and state strategy at the outset.
