Recent years have seen a substantial increase in high-profile, complex antitrust litigation in the State of Texas, which uptick is likely to continue. A confluence of several recent developments has contributed to this trajectory, casting a spotlight on Texas as a locus of antitrust enforcement and private litigation. These developments include the following:

• Texas has emerged as a leading enforcer and venue for multi-state antitrust enforcement suits;
• significant, business-friendly changes in Texas law have incentivised corporations to incorporate and relocate their headquarters to Texas, opening Texas courthouse doors to a broader array of private antitrust litigation; and
• the establishment of the Texas Business Court in 2024 has changed the landscape for complex commercial litigation in Texas, which could increase private antitrust litigation in the state.

The Antitrust Landscape in Texas

In the last few decades, antitrust litigation has not been a sizeable component of the dockets of federal and state courts in Texas. However, that is expected to change.

The Texas antitrust statute, known as the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (TFEAA), specifically requires Texas law to be construed in harmony with federal antitrust law. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, there are only a handful of decisions from the Texas Supreme Court addressing antitrust issues under Texas law.

For instance, in its 2006 Coca Cola Company v Harmar Bottling Company decision, the Supreme Court of Texas dismissed the plaintiffs’ antitrust conspiracy and monopolisation claims against Coca Cola for alleged injuries occurring in other states. The Court also dismissed claims for in-state harm for failing to show substantial harm – real or threatened – to competition in the relevant market.

More recently, in its 2021 AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc v iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC decision, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed summary judgment in favour of the defendant regarding antitrust conspiracy claims. The Court found that the plaintiff iPic had not presented sufficient evidence beyond parallel conduct to exclude the possibility of lawful, independent conduct by the defendant AMC. (The authors’ firm represented the defendant AMC in this litigation.)

However, the recent rise in state enforcement, coupled with favourable changes in Texas law governing corporations, have triggered an uptick in antitrust litigation in Texas, which is expected to continue in the coming years.

Multi-State Antitrust Enforcement Suits in Texas

The State of Texas, led by the Texas Office of Attorney General, has taken an active and leading role in investigating and prosecuting alleged antitrust violations. In pursuing these investigations and suits, Texas has joined efforts with other state attorneys general, forming multi-state coalitions, and has worked with their federal counterparts at the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

So far, Texas and other states in its multi-state coalitions have focused their antitrust efforts on investigating 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 District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, related to Google’s advertising technology products and practices. 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 pending 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 represents 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 conspired to artificially constrict the relevant coal markets through anti-competitive practices, among other allegations. 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 player 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 provides 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 similar 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 limitations grounds, but denied the anaesthesia group’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently 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 businesses 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 litigation. Jurisdictional and venue impediments that may have precluded antitrust claims from being filed in Texas against out-of-state corporations become irrelevant when corporations establish their corporate residence in Texas. Thus, if the new Texas legislation has its intended effect and more corporations choose to incorporate in Texas under Texas law, an increase in antitrust litigation in Texas courts may also follow.

Notably, the growth in antitrust litigation is likely to manifest in two ways. First, one can expect increased amounts of litigation filed by private plaintiffs in Texas, as it becomes an available forum that can efficiently adjudicate all of the claims against the target company. Second, a rise more generally in business disputes being filed in Texas will present expanded opportunities for antitrust counterclaims to be filed.

It is too soon to know the full consequences of the revamped Texas law governing corporate organisation, but the incentives are set up to foster significant antitrust litigation in Texas in coming years.

The Impact of the New Texas Business Court on Antitrust Litigation in Texas

Another key component of the recent Texas legislation is the establishment of the Texas Business Court and corresponding Fifteenth Court of Appeals. This development is also expected to increase private antitrust litigation in Texas courts. The Texas Business Court opened its courtroom doors in September 2024. This new development may impact antitrust litigation in Texas in at least two ways. First, instead of less specialised state courts, the Texas Business Court may preside over antitrust claims within its jurisdiction. Second, the business-focused court may, as intended, have a broader effect of attracting more business litigation, including antitrust litigation, in both Texas federal and state courts. As relevant background, the following aspects of the Texas Business Court are worth noting.

• It was created as a specialised court to hear and decide complex business disputes and related commercial litigation, with the goal of enhancing predictability and efficiency for both sides.
• It is composed of judges:
1. appointed by the Texas Governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate, for two-year terms with unlimited re-appointments;
2. with at least ten years of judicial or business law experience, plus citizenship and residency requirements; and
3. to be supported by resources, such as staff attorneys, technical experts and consultants.
• It is composed of 11 geographical divisions, with two judges assigned to each division and with five of those divisions currently operational, covering counties surrounding the major Texas cities of Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Houston, for a total of ten current judges.
• It can preside over suits originally filed in the court, removed to the court from other state courts, or transferred on a court’s own initiative, if jurisdictional and venue requirements are met.
• It is intended to be self-supported through the charging of fees.

Appeals from the Texas Business Court will go directly to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, also established in September 2024. That state appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction over not only business court appeals but also actions by or against state entities and employees, as well as actions challenging the constitutionality of a statute or rule when the Texas Attorney General is a party, subject to certain exclusions. Currently, three justices sit on the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

The Texas Business Court’s jurisdiction is limited by statute and concurrent with other civil courts in Texas. The Business Court’s jurisdiction is delineated into several categories based on the nature of the suit – for example, as follows.

• The Business Court has jurisdiction over certain business disputes, such as derivative, corporate governance and securities disputes, if the amount in controversy exceeds USD5 million, unless a party is a publicly traded company (in which case there is no dollar requirement).
• The Business Court also has jurisdiction over commercial disputes where the amount in controversy exceeds USD10 million and where the dispute arises out of a:
1. transaction with consideration or non-bank loan of at least USD10 million;
2. non-insurance contract or transaction where the parties agreed to Business Court jurisdiction; or
3. an alleged violation of the Texas Finance Code or the Texas Business & Commerce Code brought by or on behalf of an organisation, subject to exceptions.

The Texas antitrust statute, the TFEAA, is codified in Chapter 15 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. While Texas law provides Business Court jurisdiction over Business & Commerce Code violations exceeding USD10 million in controversy, it also qualifies that provision. The same statute provides that, unless a claim falls within its “supplemental jurisdiction”, the Business Court does not have jurisdiction over a claim “arising out of: (A) Subchapter E, Chapter 15, and Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code”. See Texas Government Code, Section 25A.004(g)(2). Subchapter E of Chapter 15 is the portion of the Texas antitrust act that governs covenants not to compete, so it appears that covenant-not-to-compete cases may not qualify for being brought in the Business Court; however, the vast majority of antitrust claims not related to non-compete agreements would qualify, so long as they meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.

Regardless, the statutory provisions are clear that the Texas Business Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over antitrust claims. Only three absolute exceptions to the Business Court’s jurisdiction exist: for medical malpractice, personal injury and legal malpractice claims.

The Texas Business Court has supplemental jurisdiction “over any other claim related to a case or controversy within the court's jurisdiction that forms part of the same case or controversy”, but such claims “may proceed in the business court only on the agreement of all parties to the claim and a judge of the division of the court before which the action is pending”. See Texas Government Code, Section 25A.004(f). Thus, if all parties and the Business Court judge agree, the Texas Business Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state antitrust claims alongside related claims within its jurisdiction.

The ability of the Texas Business Court to hear antitrust claims, plus the potential for increased overall business and antitrust litigation in Texas as a broader result of this new court, highlight the importance for businesses in or coming to Texas to stay up to date on Business Court developments and Texas antitrust law.