Introduction

Recent years have seen a substantial increase in high-profile, complex antitrust litigation in Texas, and that trend is likely to continue. A confluence of several recent developments has contributed to this trend, putting 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.
• The establishment of the Texas Business Court in 2024 has changed the landscape for complex commercial litigation in Texas, which has already expanded 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. But that is changing.

The Texas antitrust statute, known as the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (TFEAA), 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 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 lacked sufficient evidence to merit a trial because it relied on nothing more than parallel conduct, which fell short of the requirement to produce evidence that excluded the possibility of lawful, independent action by the defendant AMC. (Norton Rose Fulbright represented the defendant AMC in this litigation.)

However, the recent rise in state enforcement, coupled with favourable changes in Texas law governing corporations, has triggered an uptick in antitrust litigation in Texas state and federal courts. These trends are 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, as well as working with their federal counterparts at the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.

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”, issues related to ESG or environmental, social and governance practices, and advertising firms for alleged viewpoint suppression. Texas and the other states have also chosen to file some of their recent antitrust enforcement suits in Texas federal courts.

• 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 assert federal and state antitrust claims, alleging monopolisation and tying violations, and also bring state deceptive trade practices claims. While a trial had been set for August 2025, on 17 July 2025, the court postponed the trial and stayed all relevant deadlines and hearings 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 presided over a two-week bench trial on antitrust remedies in September and October of 2025. As of July 2026, the Virginia federal court had not issued its remedies decision or final judgment. (Norton Rose Fulbright represents the State of Texas in the state litigation.)
• In State of Texas et al. v Blackrock, Inc. et al., Texas and 12 other states sued three large institutional investors, again in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The states there bring 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 thus proceeded with discovery, which is ongoing. On 26 February 2026, one of the three defendants, The Vanguard Group, settled with all of the states for USD29.5 million. The states’ claims against the other two defendants, BlackRock and State Street, are still pending.
• In FTC et al. v Dentsu US, Inc., the FTC, joined by the State of Texas and a coalition of seven other states, sued three major US advertising agencies in the Northern District of Texas for allegedly colluding to impose brand safety standards regarding alleged disinformation and misinformation that, according to the complaint, resulted in the censorship and demonetisation of conservative commentators and news outlets. In the simultaneously filed settlement agreement, the defendants, while not admitting liability, stipulated to a permanent injunction.

The Texas Attorney General has also pursued antitrust claims in different fora under various state and federal laws. For instance, in State of Texas v Epic, filed in December 2025, the state sued Epic Systems in state court in Fort Worth for monopolisation in the electronic health records industry in violation of Texas state antitrust law. Discovery in that case is ongoing.

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 a federal court in Texas 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 U.S. Anesthesia Partners Inc. et al. While the FTC reached a preliminary settlement with defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners in April 2026, the private 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 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 generate additional private antitrust litigation in Texas 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 business-friendly amendments to state corporate law. For corporations incorporated in Texas, these revisions:

• strengthened the business judgment 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 where most 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, antitrust litigation is likely to grow 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.

Although it is too soon to know the full consequences of the revamped Texas law governing corporate organisation, private antitrust plaintiffs have chosen Texas federal and state courts to hear their claims in recent cases.

• In August 2025, X Corp. and xAI, whose flagship product is the generative AI chatbot Grok, sued Apple and OpenAI in the Northern District of Texas for allegedly entering into an exclusive dealing arrangement wherein OpenAI’s product, ChatGPT, would be the only generative AI chatbot integrated into Apple’s iPhone operating system. Apple and OpenAI’s motions to dismiss were denied, and discovery in X Corp. et al. v Apple, Inc., et al. is ongoing.
• X Corp. (formerly known as Twitter) filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas alleging that a group of advertisers agreed to stop buying ads on the social media site. The district court dismissed X Corp. v WFA et al. X Corp. has appealed the dismissal of its case to the Fifth Circuit, though WFA settled on appeal with X in late July 2026.

Additionally, other litigants, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, have presented Texas federal courts with assertions of federal antitrust overreach. For instance, in August 2024, in Ryan, LLC, et al. v FTC, the Chamber, along with several private plaintiffs, successfully convinced the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas to vacate an FTC rule that would have voided non-compete agreements for the significant majority of American workers. Similarly, in February of 2026, the US Chamber of Commerce obtained an order from a federal district court in the Eastern District of Texas that vacated the revised HSR pre-merger filing requirements.

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 specialised appellate court – the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. This development is also expected to increase private antitrust litigation in Texas courts. The Texas Business Court opened its 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 Texas Business Court:

• 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;
• is composed of judges:
1. appointed by the Texas Governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate, for two-year terms with unlimited reappointments;
2. with at least ten years of judicial or business law experience; and
3. supported by resources, such as staff attorneys, technical experts and consultants;
• is composed of eleven 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; and
• 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.

Appeals from the Texas Business Court will go directly to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. That state appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction over not only business court appeals but also actions by or against state entities and employees and 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, as indicated by the following.

• 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 or Business & Commerce Code brought by or on behalf of an organisation, subject to exceptions.

The Texas antitrust statute, known as the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, 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” (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, but 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.

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” (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.

Multiple antitrust cases are now pending in the Texas Business Court. For instance, in SafeLease v Storable Inc., et al., a provider of tenant insurance for self-storage facilities has sued a storage facility software provider for allegedly using its position in the facility management market to obtain monopoly power in the tenant insurance market.

In its first year of operation (September 2024 to September 2025), 185 cases were filed in the Texas Business Court. Cases filed between 1 September 2025 and 28 February 2026 numbered 141. The Business Court is establishing a body of precedent for sophisticated parties to reference when considering where to litigate their business disputes, including potentially antitrust claims.

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.