2026 State Attorney General Elections: What Businesses Should Expect

As of November 4, 2026, the state attorney general elections point to increased enforcement in 2027, particularly in consumer protection, antitrust, AI, health care, and data centers.^[1] Businesses should prepare for more investigations under existing laws and proposals for new legislation or rules. Campaign commitments indicate priorities, but their timing and implementation remain uncertain.^[2]

Key Takeaways

• Algorithmic pricing, surveillance pricing, and AI-enabled consumer harms are emerging enforcement priorities.
• Data center scrutiny crosses party lines, with a focus on infrastructure costs, transparency, resource use, and local input.
• Health care enforcement is likely to expand across competition, Medicaid fraud, and provider fraud.
• Agribusiness concentration and rural-market fairness are emerging as priority issues in several states.
• In several states, same-party governor–AG pairings may accelerate investigations, legislation, and public-facing enforcement agendas^[3].

1. Pricing Tools and AI Face Greater Scrutiny

Businesses should expect greater scrutiny of technology-enabled pricing and market conduct. Texas AG-elect Nathan Johnson has promised a first-month audit of the state’s consumer protection, fair competition, and employment laws, with particular focus on algorithmic pricing, AI scams, and other technologies that can “warp markets.” He endorsed continued litigation over RealPage-type algorithmic price-fixing and signaled an interest in legislative updates where current law is viewed as outdated. Johnson also signaled support for continuing his predecessor Ken Paxton’s competition enforcement against major technology companies.

Incoming AGs in other states have announced similar priorities. Michigan AG-elect Eli Savit pledged to use rulemaking authority within his first 100 days to address AI-driven algorithmic price-gouging, surveillance pricing, and deceptive marketing. Nevada AG-elect Nicole Cannizzaro similarly identified data-driven personalized pricing, data-driven rent increases, and price-fixing of essential goods as enforcement priorities. Georgia AG-elect Tanya Miller campaigned on investigating landlord price-fixing, grocery-market conduct, and AI-enabled rent-setting, including conduct associated with RealPage.

Businesses using algorithmic or personalized pricing tools or AI-enabled decision-making should prepare to explain how prices are set, what data is used, whether competitors exchange sensitive information indirectly through software, and whether disclosures match actual system behavior. Businesses should also monitor related state legislation.

2. Data Centers Face Broader Oversight

Data center scrutiny crosses party lines. Rather than a uniform ban on development, businesses should expect closer review of infrastructure costs, public disclosures, and community input.

Incoming AGs in Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Colorado emphasized transparency, community input, and protection against higher utility or water costs. Texas AG-elect Johnson emphasized local communities’ rights to influence siting, operations, and resource use. Georgia AG-elect Miller proposed disclosure of incentives, projected jobs, infrastructure needs, and electricity and water use before final votes on data center deals. Michigan AG-elect Savit promised to protect residential ratepayers and support communities facing large developers. Nevada AG-elect Cannizzaro backed legislation requiring developers to pay for new infrastructure, limiting NDAs, and expanding community input and environmental review. Oklahoma AG-elect Jon Echols said developers should bear associated electricity costs and opposed secrecy in state agreements. Colorado AG-elect Jena Griswold said she would protect Coloradans when data centers increase costs of utilities.

Incoming governors may reinforce this trend. In Texas, Georgia, Michigan, and Ohio, incoming governors supported either a pause, moratorium, or conditional slowdown on new data center development until stronger guardrails are in place. Iowa and Nevada’s incoming governors instead emphasized ending tax breaks and requiring developers to pay their own way.

Companies developing, financing, powering, or supplying data centers should prepare for greater scrutiny of public-records exposure, local engagement, infrastructure-cost allocation, water use, utility-rate impacts, labor commitments, and environmental conditions. These issues may arise in permitting, incentive negotiations, and enforcement inquiries.

3. Health Care Enforcement: Competition and Fraud

Health care companies should prepare for increased enforcement, with priorities varying by state across competition, fraud, and consumer protection.

Antitrust focus: Rhode Island AG-elect Kim Ahern pledged to scrutinize health care mergers and acquisitions, including blocking transactions that prioritize profits over patients. Colorado AG-elect Jena Griswold likewise identified health care as a market where the attorney general should address price-fixing, bid-rigging, and monopoly-producing mergers. In Iowa, AG-elect Nate Willems specifically flagged private-equity consolidation in dental practices and other local service markets as a concern, although his platform did not detail a hospital-merger agenda. Florida AG James Uthmeier is currently pursuing conduct-related actions against PBMs, including matters involving alleged price-fixing, restraints of trade, and other anticompetitive practices in the prescription drug market.

Fraud and consumer protection: Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Florida signal continued or expanded enforcement. Willems explicitly supports continued Medicaid-fraud enforcement, highlighted whistleblower incentives, and pointed to nursing homes and long-term care providers as particular concerns. Cannizzaro promised a budget request to strengthen Nevada’s Medicaid-fraud unit. Ohio’s presumptive AG-elect John Kulewicz has targeted Medicaid-provider and nursing-home fraud. South Carolina AG-elect David Stumbo campaigned on stronger tools to investigate and prosecute Medicaid fraud. Texas AG-elect Johnson identified Medicaid fraud as a campaign priority, and Florida AG James Uthmeier has highlighted existing Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

Health care companies should assess these risks separately. Merger review, PBM practices, claims denials, billing compliance, nursing-home operations, and Medicaid fraud present distinct risks. A single course of conduct may draw scrutiny under both competition and fraud or consumer-protection laws.^[4]

4. Agribusiness and Rural Markets Draw Attention

Agribusiness and rural-market concentration are also emerging enforcement priorities.

Georgia AG-elect Miller pledged to use antitrust and consumer-protection authority against consolidation by processors and input suppliers, while also defending farmers’ legal protections under the state’s Right to Farm Act. Iowa AG-elect Willems likewise identified agricultural monopolies as a competition priority and connected that concern to broader skepticism of private-equity roll-ups. By contrast, Alabama AG-elect Katherine Robertson emphasized property rights and protection against excessive regulation, underscoring differences in state agricultural priorities. Florida’s Uthmeier has participated in an egg-price antitrust settlement, suggesting continued interest in food-related pricing matters.

What this means for clients: Processors, distributors, input suppliers, and firms pursuing roll-up strategies in rural markets should expect more attention to contract fairness, market concentration, pricing conduct, and the treatment of independent producers.

5. Political Alignment May Accelerate Policy Agendas

Reported results indicate same-party governor–AG pairings in Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina. In several of these states, the candidates also campaigned together.^[5]

Party alignment does not guarantee agreement. Shared priorities may nevertheless support legislation and AG staffing or budget requests. In Texas and Georgia, incoming governors and AGs have emphasized affordability, public accountability, and data center oversight, although their proposals differ.^[6]

What Companies Should Do Now

Before the new administrations take office, companies should:

• Review pricing and personalization practices. Assess whether pricing tools use consumer or competitor data in ways that could raise collusion, deception, or unfairness concerns.
• Reassess AI governance. Review controls for AI-enabled pricing and decision-making, consumer disclosures, and marketing claims.
• Review data center project commitments and disclosures. Review incentives, utility cost recovery, water availability, local consultation, labor requirements, and public-records exposure.
• Prepare for health care antitrust, fraud, and consumer protection investigations. Tailor health care compliance reviews to each state’s competition, fraud, and consumer-protection priorities. 
• Evaluate exposure to multistate activity. State AGs have committed to large-scale antitrust enforcement without federal co-enforcement.^[7] Assess potential exposure to coordinated state or federal investigations, particularly involving antitrust and technology.
• Monitor early-term investigations and policy proposals. Track first-30-day audit and first-100-day rulemaking commitments, as well as budget requests that may shape 2027 enforcement.

Bottom Line

Businesses should prepare for more active, sector-specific state enforcement in 2027, including greater use of existing laws to scrutinize new technologies and market structures.

We would like to thank Paige Etherington for her contributions to this alert.