State AG Letters Highlight Antitrust and Consumer Protection Risks of Collaborative ESG Efforts

On February 10, 2026, a coalition of ten state Attorneys General, led by Florida Attorney General James Uthemeier (the AGs), issued warning letters to nearly 80 corporations associated with the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. According to the AGs, the companies’ adoption of policies promoted by these organizations amounts to “collective action” and “coordinated practices” intended to reduce the use of certain plastics in consumer goods and packaging. The AGs characterize these efforts as a series of agreements among competitors that may reduce economic output and competition, increase prices, and mislead the public, potentially in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The letters state that the companies “should reasonably anticipate” further investigation, and advise them to preserve relevant documents and information. In closing, the AGs ask the companies to reply in writing with an explanation of the “legal basis” for why their participation with “any plastics advocacy organization” is “not violating antitrust or consumer protection laws.” The letters follow similar ones sent by the AGs to the advocacy groups themselves on October 29, 2025.

The AGs’ letters of February 10 are the latest move in a broader effort by antitrust and consumer protection authorities to scrutinize and characterize collaborative activities promoting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives under the lens of “group boycotts” or other antitrust violations. For example:

• The letters cite a lawsuit filed in 2024 by a different group of state Attorneys General against three large institutional investors that allegedly violated state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws by investing in publicly traded U.S. coal producers and using those holdings to pressure them into reducing the output of coal in line with “net zero” climate initiatives. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed statements of interest supporting the lawsuit, which has survived motions to dismiss.

• In August 2025, the FTC closed an investigation into four semitruck manufacturers and a trade organization participating in the Clean Truck Partnership, a state‑regulator‑led initiative to reduce semitruck emissions by committing the participants to phase out manufacturing diesel‑powered trucks in favor of “zero‑emission” trucks. In exchange for the FTC closing its investigation, the manufacturers agreed to end the partnership and refrain from entering into similar agreements in the future. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson noted in his statement closing the investigation that the partnership in effect sought to “eliminate competition and reduce output under the guise of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) objectives,” and that “there is no ESG exemption from the antitrust laws.” He further stated that the FTC would remain “vigilant against ESG-driven practices that unlawfully eliminate competition in the use of oil, coal, and natural gas to power the American economy.”

These enforcement actions, investigations, and warning letters signal that certain antitrust and consumer protection enforcers are increasingly skeptical of ESG collaborations. At the federal and state levels, these enforcers have shown a willingness both to investigate and litigate against such collaborations, portraying them as potentially anticompetitive, collusive conduct that violates antitrust law. They have also used their authority to secure dissolution of ESG collaborations short of litigation, as in the FTC’s “zero-emission” truck investigation, an outcome cited favorably by the AGs’ warning letter of February 10.

Companies participating in trade associations, pledges, or other multi‑stakeholder ESG initiatives would be well advised to assess carefully whether their participation could be characterized as anticompetitive boycotts or agreements on price, output, or supply. They should also consult antitrust counsel to conduct proactive risk reviews, ensure robust antitrust compliance and governance around their ESG efforts, and take measures aimed at mitigating the risk of a government investigation. Consultation with counsel specializing in practice before state Attorneys General, and who are well-versed in ESG issues, is also recommended for guidance through these complex and intersectional matters.  

Foley & Lardner has a wealth of experience guiding clients through antitrust investigations and litigation, matters involving state Attorneys General, and ESG inquiries. If you have any questions about the implications of these developments for your company, please contact the authors of this article or your Foley & Lardner attorney.