1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Jersey Bolsters Competition Enforcement with New Antitrust Section

New Jersey Bolsters Competition Enforcement with New Antitrust Section

Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.30.24

Last week the New Jersey State Attorney General (AG) Matthew J. Platkin announced the creation of a new division: the Antitrust Litigation and Competition Enforcement Section (ALCES) within the Division of Law (DOL). The permanent and stand-alone section is based out of the DOL’s Newark office and is intended to reinforce the state’s capacity for robust antitrust protection. This marks yet another effort by a state AG to increase antitrust resources and focus on both large and small antitrust issues to promote fair and competitive markets.

New Jersey is no stranger to taking part in antitrust cases. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has been involved in numerous cases against major technology corporations, including Apple (in which the DOL is local counsel for the federal and state plaintiffs), as well as other industries such as the airline, retail, labor, healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries. 

Even in light of this antitrust enforcement history, the addition of the ALCES is particularly meaningful as New Jersey is significantly increasing the resources and attention devoted to antitrust enforcement, both in terms of single-state and multistate actions. AG Platkin has also underscored the importance of antitrust cases by stating that he has “the critical obligation to protect consumers and workers from the problems that result from unchecked monopolies and oligopolies. With [the addition of the ALCES], [the OAG is] acting to safeguard the interests of [the state’s] residents and foster a fair and competitive marketplace for all.”

In recent years, we’ve seen increased collaboration between state and federal antitrust enforcers, signaling that state AGs do not see antitrust concerns as a solely federal issue. State AGs’ willingness to wade into antitrust waters may result from their states' different, and sometimes less stringent standards, than that of the Sherman Act or Clayton Act. For instance, many states’ antitrust laws permit monetary recovery where it would not be allowed under federal law, e.g., indirect purchasers harmed by anticompetitive practices. State AGs may be further encouraged to bring antitrust cases in the near future as experts predict that there is a good chance that the United States Supreme Court will overrule or alter the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to enforce certain antitrust laws.

In addition to partnering with federal and other state antitrust enforcers, state AGs have a variety of tools at their disposal that allow them to bring a steady stream of antitrust cases. The passing of the Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act (AEVA) and the NAAG’s Antitrust Committee, provide state AGs with frameworks and resources to pursue these types of cases. The AEVA was signed into law less than two years ago and provides state AGs with the option to avoid having their antitrust cases consolidated in Multidistrict Litigation. This can result in cases being placed in different courts or on a different track from similar cases brought by private class action plaintiffs—or even other state AGs. The NAAG Antitrust Committee facilitates the work of attorneys general in enforcing state and federal antitrust laws, in addition to supporting the NAAG’s Multistate Antitrust Task Force, which is responsible for coordinating multistate antitrust litigation. 

New Jersey isn’t the only state with a division dedicated to antitrust cases. California and Colorado, for example, have long-standing antitrust divisions. We expect to see these and other state AGs continuing to bolster their antitrust efforts. And because states are often more proximate to small and medium sized business in their respective states than the DOJ or the FTC, we expect state AGs will continue to bring antitrust enforcement actions against companies that would otherwise go unnoticed by federal agencies.   

Our team will continue to stay apprised of state AG antitrust developments. For weekly updates on recent state AG matters, sign up for Crowell & Moring’s state AG blog here.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....