Articles

Client Alert: State Attorneys General Target Plastics Industry Initiatives with Antitrust Scrutiny Amid a Growing Trend: What Nonprofits Need to Know When Participating in Coalitions and Coordinated Initiatives

A coalition of ten Republican state attorneys general recently sent letters to companies participating in plastics-related section 501(c)(3) and section 501(c)(6) organizations, warning that their participation may violate federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. This development is part of a broader trend of regulatory agencies and state officials using antitrust scrutiny to target nonprofits and associations for what some view as political reasons. Nonprofits, trade associations and their members should carefully review their involvement in collective industry initiatives and consider seeking legal guidance to navigate this evolving regulatory climate.
 

The February 2026 Letters to Plastics Initiatives

On February 10, 2026, a coalition of ten state attorneys general—led by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier and including officials from Georgia, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Texas and West Virginia—sent formal warning letters to companies identified as members of plastics organizations, including the U.S. Plastics Pact, a consortium of nonprofits, research institutions and government agencies; the Consumer Goods Forum, a section 501(c)(6); and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a project of a section 501(c)(3) organization. The letters build on earlier correspondence sent directly to those organizations on October 29, 2025, which raised “grave concerns” that their policies and coordinated initiatives may constitute unlawful restraints of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act.[1]

The attorneys general assert that these organizations' targets and compliance frameworks—such as commitments to eliminate certain “problematic or unnecessary” plastic packaging or achieve artificial recyclability goals—depend on “collective action” that may harm consumers by removing products from the market without regard to consumer demand, product effectiveness or replacement costs. Id. at 2. The letters specifically warn that “[m]embership in, or guidance from, an industry association does not immunize anticompetitive conduct or consumer harm from enforcement scrutiny.” Id. at 1. Companies receiving the letters were advised to “reasonably anticipate” formal investigative demands, subpoenas or other compulsory legal process and to preserve all relevant documents, communications, and data. Id.
 

Connection to ESG-Related Antitrust Enforcement

The plastics initiative letters are not occurring in a vacuum—they closely parallel other enforcement actions by Republican state attorneys general targeting environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives. The letters themselves explicitly acknowledge this lineage, noting that the “collective, coordinated action closely parallels recent industry initiatives advanced under the ‘net-zero’ banner that prompted substantial legal scrutiny by State Attorneys General.” Id. at 2.

The attorneys general point to their prior efforts targeting net-zero alliances in the insurance, banking and asset management sectors. In those instances, when legal risks were identified, “participating companies elected to withdraw from those arrangements, resulting in the dissolution or material abandonment of the initiatives and obviating the need for further enforcement action.” Id. The clear implication is that the same pressure is now being applied to the plastics sector.
 

A Broader Trend: Scrutiny of Nonprofits and Associations

These enforcement actions appear to be part of a larger trend of federal and state regulatory agencies and state officials scrutinizing nonprofits and associations. Whether it involves ESG investing, environmental sustainability, or plastics reduction, state attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle are increasingly wielding antitrust law as a tool to challenge collective industry actions they deem objectionable.

Indeed, this is not a one-sided affair. In late January 2026, Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed an antitrust lawsuit against BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that they conspired to delay the transition to renewable energy in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.[2] This bipartisan use of antitrust scrutiny underscores that nonprofits and trade associations across the political spectrum may find themselves in the crosshairs depending on the policy preferences of their state’s attorney general.
 

What This Means for Nonprofits and Trade Associations

The implications for nonprofits, trade associations and their members are significant:

For Associations and Initiatives: Organizations that coordinate collective action—whether related to sustainability, packaging, energy or other issues—should carefully review their governance structures, member commitments and public communications. Many organizational goals and initiatives are pro-competitive and permissible, but agreements that require members to adhere to specific targets or compliance frameworks may attract antitrust scrutiny if they are perceived as raising prices, constraining output, reducing product quality, preventing innovation, limiting consumer choice or otherwise unreasonably restraining trade.

For Member Companies: Companies and organizations participating in industry initiatives should evaluate the legal risks of those initiatives. The plastics letters make clear that regulatory scrutiny can extend to individual member companies, not just the associations themselves. As the attorneys general warned, “you should reasonably anticipate that the undersigned States may seek additional information regarding your organization’s participation in these initiatives, including through formal investigative demands, subpoenas, or other compulsory legal process.” Charities and other nonprofit organizations are not immune.

For In-House Counsel: Now is the time to conduct an antitrust audit of your organization's participation in industry initiatives. Consider whether any collective commitments could be characterized as agreements to reduce output, limit choice in the marketplace or otherwise reduce competition in your market.
 

How We Can Help

Whiteford has extensive experience advising nonprofits, trade associations and their members on these complex and evolving issues. We are ready to assist you in navigating the challenges presented by this heightened regulatory and enforcement landscape—including matters related to antitrust compliance, document preservation, investigative responses, strategic communications and litigation. Please contact Heidi Abegg or Spencer Cox or another member of our practice group if you have any questions or concerns regarding your compliance obligations, risks or strategies.