States Thrust Themselves Into Antitrust Enforcement, Creating New Hurdles for Dealmakers

Christy Matelis, an associate in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Antitrust Practice Group, was quoted in the April 28, 2025 Corporate Counsel article, “States Thrust Themselves Into Antitrust Enforcement, Creating New Hurdles for Dealmakers.”

“These are going to be burdensome for filing parties. This is something you need to plan for,” said Christy Matelis, a former antitrust attorney in the Utah Attorney General’s Office who now advises clients in antitrust and competition matters at Troutman Pepper Locke.

…

Indeed, “I think we are going to see this on a greater scale,” said Matelis.

…

Indeed, Troutman’s Matelis said states have a long history of challenging deals when federal enforcers haven’t. State attorneys general may also look at issues federal regulators won’t, such as those deals that may have disparate effects on state residents, she said.

“It’s a tough thing for state enforcers to rely solely on federal antitrust enforcers in Washington, D.C., to protect their citizens from potential antitrust violations,” she said. “Unlike federal antitrust enforcers, state antitrust enforcers live and work in the communities they serve.”

Matelis said parties to potential M&A deals will need to plan for additional time as state-specific premerger notification laws sprout. They’ll need to fully explore notification laws in states that might have a stake in a deal, she added.

…

Last year, in an article for the American Bar Association, Matelis predicted states would latch onto the Uniform Law Commission’s model premerger notification act.

She said parties to M&A deals would “need to understand how transactions might proceed in a new environment of multiple, potentially divergent reviews and enforcement.”

The antitrust attorney is geared up and ready to go.

“I suspect this will become a growing part of my practice because it’s happening more and more,” said Matelis.