High Gas Prices, Heightened Enforcement Risk: DOJ and FTC Call on State Attorneys General to Investigate Petroleum Markets
By: Brian D. Nieves and Abhishek Kambli
The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are putting energy companies and other petroleum market participants on notice: rising (or slow-to-fall) gas prices may bring scrutiny from federal antitrust enforcers and state attorneys general armed with their own antitrust, consumer protection, and price gouging laws.
On July 3, 2026, DOJ and the FTC announced that they are closely monitoring petroleum markets and gas prices for potentially unlawful conduct. In a joint letter to state attorneys general, the agencies urged state law enforcers to investigate and, where appropriate, bring enforcement actions against companies engaged in price fixing, market manipulation, monopolization, deceptive practices, or other misconduct contributing to high fuel prices.
The announcement does not establish a new legal standard, nor does it identify any company as having violated the law, but it sends an important enforcement signal. The Trump administration is increasingly connecting its affordability agenda with existing federal and state enforcement authorities and companies throughout the petroleum supply chain should prepare for the possibility of overlapping scrutiny from DOJ, the FTC, and state attorneys general.
A Coordinated Federal-State Enforcement Push
The joint letter follows public concern from President Trump about the pace at which lower crude oil prices are being reflected at the pump. DOJ and the FTC told state attorneys general that, as the federal government responds, both agencies are “closely monitoring petroleum markets.”
The agencies emphasized the range of authorities potentially available to law enforcement. DOJ’s Antitrust Division can investigate and criminally prosecute agreements among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate markets. DOJ and the FTC also possess civil antitrust authority to challenge certain agreements in restraint of trade and unlawful monopolization conduct while the FTC may investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
The federal agencies are now encouraging states to add their own authorities to that enforcement mix
That distinction is important. DOJ and the FTC acknowledged that they do not enforce general laws prohibiting price gouging as such, separate from anticompetitive conduct or conduct falling within the FTC’s jurisdiction. Many states, however, have additional tools that may apply to pricing conduct during market disruptions or declared emergencies.
States can anticipate a broader enforcement environment in which the same pricing conduct could be evaluated simultaneously under different statutes, different legal standards, and by different enforcement authorities.
Why Energy Companies Should Pay Attention
The July 3 announcement is critical for businesses across the petroleum supply chain, including producers, refiners, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and companies involved in the transportation and sale of fuel.
The most immediate risk is scrutiny of communications and conduct among competitors. DOJ specifically identified price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation as criminal antitrust violations and the agencies cautioned that market volatility cannot be used as cover for collusion, market manipulation, fraud, or other unlawful conduct.
But companies should think more broadly than traditional cartel conduct. Periods of rapid market volatility often involve legitimate changes in costs, supply, demand, inventories, transportation constraints, contractual obligations, and regional market conditions. Nevertheless, a pricing decision that is economically explainable may still attract scrutiny when consumer prices remain politically salient. Companies may therefore need to be prepared to show that their conduct was lawful and to explain contemporaneously and clearly the business reasons for pricing decisions.
That risk is amplified by the involvement of state attorneys general. Multistate investigations can move quickly, involve broad civil investigative demands or subpoenas, and create parallel legal, political, and public-relations pressure. Different states may also proceed under different statutory authorities and theories of liability.
For companies operating nationally or across multiple regional fuel markets, the enforcement landscape may therefore be more complex than a single DOJ or FTC inquiry.
The Whistleblower Risk Is Significant
The agencies also highlighted DOJ’s Antitrust Division Whistleblower Rewards Program and urged state attorneys general to publicize it to employees, industry insiders, and others who may have information concerning suspected antitrust crimes.
Under the program described in the agencies’ letter, qualifying whistleblowers may receive between 15 and 30 percent of criminal fines collected when voluntarily provided original information leads to at least $1 million in criminal penalties. The agencies also highlighted a $1 million whistleblower payment made earlier this year in connection with a conspiracy involving prices for used cars auctioned online.
For companies, this makes internal compliance systems even more important. Employees who believe they have identified unlawful conduct now have a significant financial incentive to report externally. Companies should ensure that antitrust concerns raised internally are escalated, investigated, and addressed promptly.
Affordability Is Becoming an Enforcement Priority
The broader signal extends beyond the petroleum industry. The July 3 announcement illustrates how the Trump administration may use traditional enforcement authorities to advance an affordability agenda. Rather than relying solely on legislation or regulation, the administration can use existing antitrust and consumer protection laws against conduct it believes is unlawfully increasing prices paid by American consumers.
For businesses, that means politically salient pricing issues may become enforcement issues. Industries involving necessities or significant household expenses, including energy, food, healthcare, housing-related services, transportation, and consumer goods, should watch closely for similar coordination among federal agencies and state attorneys general.
This does not mean that high prices alone violate the law. They do not. Nor does parallel pricing, without more, necessarily establish an antitrust violation. But where pricing becomes a major political and consumer issue, companies should expect regulators to examine whether the explanation is lawful market behavior or potentially actionable conduct.
New Considerations for Companies
Companies participating in petroleum and fuel markets should consider several immediate steps.
First, businesses should review antitrust compliance policies and training, particularly for employees involved in pricing, sales, supply, distribution, procurement, and industry associations. Communications with competitors, including text messages and communications through encrypted or ephemeral messaging platforms, deserve particular attention.
Second, companies should evaluate whether pricing and supply decisions are adequately documented. During periods of significant volatility, contemporaneous business records explaining cost inputs, inventory constraints, transportation issues, contractual requirements, and other legitimate economic factors can become important if regulators later question pricing decisions.
Third, companies should review internal reporting and escalation processes. In light of DOJ’s whistleblower incentives, businesses need reliable mechanisms through which employees can raise concerns internally and confidence that credible complaints will be investigated appropriately.
Fourth, companies operating across multiple states should understand the state specific enforcement landscape. State consumer protection and price gouging laws differ, and the July 3 letter expressly encourages state attorneys general to consider the full range of tools available under their own laws.
Finally, companies receiving an inquiry from one enforcement authority should consider the possibility of parallel or follow-on scrutiny. A state AG investigation can expand into a multistate matter, attract federal interest, or create congressional and public scrutiny. Response strategy should therefore account for the complete legal and political environment from the outset.
Bottom Line
DOJ and the FTC’s call to state attorneys general is an important enforcement signal for the energy industry and potentially for other sectors facing politically salient affordability concerns.
The announcement does not change the substantive antitrust laws and high prices do not themselves establish unlawful conduct. But the administration has made clear that petroleum markets are under scrutiny and that federal officials want state attorneys general actively involved in identifying and pursuing potentially unlawful pricing conduct.
Companies should expect a more coordinated enforcement environment in which federal antitrust investigations, FTC scrutiny, state consumer-protection actions, state price gouging laws, whistleblower complaints, and political attention may intersect.
For energy companies and other market participants, now is the time to review antitrust compliance, ensure pricing decisions are appropriately documented, strengthen internal reporting systems, and prepare for the possibility that a pricing inquiry may involve more than one regulator and more than one legal theory.
How Holtzman Vogel Can Help
Holtzman Vogel helps clients navigate complex matters at the intersection of federal enforcement, state attorney general investigations, regulatory policy, congressional oversight, litigation, and political risk.
Our team advises companies facing government investigations and politically sensitive enforcement matters, including matters involving DOJ, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and congressional committees. We can help businesses assess enforcement exposure, respond to federal and state inquiries, strengthen compliance programs, and develop coordinated legal strategies for matters that carry regulatory, litigation, congressional, and reputational risk.
