USA – TEXAS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Darryl Anderson, Carlos Rainer, Geraldine Young and Abraham Chang, Norton Rose Fulbright
So far, Texas and other states in its multi-state coali - tions have focused their antitrust efforts on investigat - ing and prosecuting technology companies or “big tech” as well as issues related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices. Texas and the other states have also chosen to file some of their recent antitrust enforcement suits in Texas federal courts. State of Texas et al v Google LLC In State of Texas et al v Google LLC , Texas and 16 other states and territories sued Google in the US Dis - trict Court for the Eastern District of Texas, related to Google’s advertising technology products and prac - tices. The states brought federal and state antitrust claims, alleging monopolisation and tying violations, and also bring state deceptive trade practices claims. The parties in that case are awaiting a trial date pend - ing final judgment in parallel DOJ antitrust litigation in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In April 2025, the Virginia federal court in the DOJ suit found that Google had wilfully engaged in a series of anti-competitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in two relevant markets. That court is scheduled to preside over a bench trial on antitrust remedies in September 2025. (The authors’ firm rep - resents the State of Texas in this litigation.) State of Texas et al v Blackrock, Inc et al In State of Texas et al v Blackrock, Inc et al , Texas and ten other states sued three large institutional investors, again in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The states there brought federal and state antitrust claims, as well as state consumer protection claims, alleging that the institutional investors con - spired to artificially constrict the relevant coal markets through anti-competitive practices, among other alle - gations. The defendants moved to dismiss the states’ antitrust claims, but in August 2025 the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the states plausibly alleged their antitrust conspiracy claims. The case is thus proceeding with discovery. Summary In short, the State of Texas has emerged as a key play - er in government antitrust enforcement, spearheading multi-state antitrust efforts and bringing enforcement suits to Texas.
A more active enforcement regime by the State of Texas can be expected to lead to expanded private litigation as well. It is a common phenomenon that private litigants frequently file follow-on litigation that tracks the allegations made by enforcement agencies, and that litigation is often filed in the same jurisdiction and venue as the enforcement action itself. Recent antitrust litigation in Texas federal courts pro - vides an example of this phenomenon. Following an antitrust suit filed by the FTC against an anaesthesia group and a private equity firm in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a private plaintiff filed a proposed antitrust class action based on simi - lar claims against the same defendants in the same court in Musharbash v US Anesthesia Partners Inc et al . That litigation is ongoing. In August 2025, the court in Musharbash granted the private equity firm’s motion to dismiss as time-barred on statute of limi- tations grounds, but denied the anaesthesia group’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had suf - ficiently alleged Article III standing and injury in fact. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that more active enforcement in Texas will likely generate additional private antitrust litigation in the state as well. The Impact of Texas Corporate Law Reform on Private Antitrust Litigation in Texas In landmark legislation designed to attract business - es to Texas, the Texas legislature recently enacted a package of business-friendly amendments to state corporate law. For corporations incorporated in Texas, these revisions strengthened the business judgement rule, limited books and records inspection rights, and raised the threshold for shareholder derivative suits, among other things. Taken together, the changes are explicitly aimed at challenging Delaware’s historic dominance as the state in which corporations choose to incorporate, incentivising them to incorporate in Texas instead. A natural consequence of an increasing number of corporations calling Texas home is an increasing amount of business litigation, including antitrust liti - gation. Jurisdictional and venue impediments that may have precluded antitrust claims from being filed in Texas against out-of-state corporations become
328 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook