On February 20, 2026, the Ohio State Attorney General's Office announced its most recent criminal antitrust action. The indictment charged a Columbus resident with a bid-rigging scheme that artificially inflated prices in online auctions. Specifically, the Ohio State AG alleged that the defendant used false identities to place bids on 760 auction items, creating the impression that the items were in greater demand than they actually were, a practice known as "shill bidding." The charges were brought under the Valentine Act, Ohio's state antitrust law.
The Ohio case is the latest instance of a trend of increased criminal antitrust enforcement by states. State legislatures, including in California and New York, have recently amended their antitrust laws to broaden their reach and increase penalties. For example, California amended its antitrust law (the Cartwright Act), effective January 1, 2026, to increase criminal antitrust penalties to more than $6 million for businesses and $1 million for individuals. As before, states continue to use civil litigation as an antitrust enforcement tool, including in lawsuits alleging that the use of algorithmic pricing software led to higher rental prices, or against energy companies alleging that antitrust violations led to higher energy costs. State AGs have also increased their scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions.
But because it is a criminal charge, the Ohio case also suggests a new development in the trend. While most states' antitrust laws have long provided for criminal penalties, historically it has been rare for states to enforce criminal antitrust laws. In recent years, however, state AGs have signaled increased attention to criminal enforcement. Accordingly, the Ohio case may portend increased aggressiveness by states in pursuing criminal antitrust violations.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
