A blue wave has swept Democrats into control of both the House and Senate , dealing a major blow to Donald Trump in the midterm elections. But beyond the congressional shake-up, a handful of state attorney general races could prove just as consequential for the technology industry.
Democrats won five closely watched attorney general races, including a surprise victory in Texas, where Nathan Johnson defeated Republican Mayes Middleton to become the state’s first Democratic attorney general since 1994. In Arizona, incumbent Kris Mayes defeated Republican Warren Petersen, while Wisconsin’s Josh Kaul secured a third term. Michigan’s Eli Savit defeated Republican Doug Lloyd to succeed term-limited Democrat Dana Nessel, and Democrat Nicole Cannizzaro won Nevada’s open seat.
The results could have huge implications for Big Tech . As federal lawmakers have struggled to rein in the industry, state attorneys general have emerged as some of its most powerful watchdogs, using investigations and lawsuits to force changes to products and practices nationwide. And a change in leadership can bring an abrupt shift in enforcement priorities.
“State attorneys general have become the preeminent regulator and regulatory enforcer in the United States over the last 15 or 20 years,” says Stephen Cobb, partner and vice chair of the state attorneys general practice at Foley & Lardner, a Washington, D.C., law firm. “We’ve seen state attorney generals from across the aisles having an increased focus on the technology industries generally,” he adds.
Why these races matter for Big Tech
Texas, in particular, could signal a major shift. The state’s attorney general’s office has long been among the most influential Republican-led legal operations in the country, regularly helping spearhead multistate lawsuits. Johnson has promised to refocus the office on consumer protection rather than partisan political battles—a change that could reshape the coalitions bringing legal challenges against technology companies.
Arizona and Michigan are also important players in tech enforcement. Arizona has been a key participant in multistate actions targeting the industry, while Michigan has been “actively engaged in national consumer protection and technology matters,” says Brandon J. Smith, partner at law firm Holtzman Vogel.
“A change in attorney general can mean a significant change in enforcement priorities almost overnight, even without a single change in the underlying law,” Smith says.
Attorneys general already have sweeping authority to investigate technology companies, Smith notes. “The technology industry sometimes underestimates just how much authority state attorneys general already possess,” he adds. Even without new AI -specific legislation, state AGs can investigate tech companies using existing consumer protection, unfair and deceptive practices, and antitrust laws.
Tech regulation is increasingly bipartisan
At first glance, the Democratic sweep might seem like bad news for Big Tech. But the partisan dynamics of tech regulation are more complicated, Smith cautions.
Republican attorneys general have generally focused on issues such as alleged censorship and consumer safety, while Democrats have placed greater emphasis on privacy and algorithmic discrimination. But both parties have become increasingly aggressive in their scrutiny of the tech industry, meaning that a Republican victory doesn’t necessarily translate into a friendlier regulatory environment.
“Both parties increasingly view big tech as an industry requiring greater scrutiny,” Smith says. “I don’t think technology companies should interpret partisan disagreement as an indication that either side is going to leave them alone.”
That bipartisan pressure has been particularly evident in efforts to protect children online. Josh Golin, executive director of the children’s advocacy nonprofit Fairplay, points to state AG investigations and lawsuits involving Meta, TikTok , Snap, Discord, and Roblox, which he says have helped push companies to change their products and introduce additional safety features. He expects that scrutiny to continue regardless of which party holds office, given the broad political concern over children’s online safety.
The limits of regulation through litigation
Tech companies are “definitely watching because attorneys general have shown that a single state enforcement can change how that national product works,” says K.J. Bagchi, vice president of U.S. policy and government relations at the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry trade association.
But Bagchi argues that the focus on who occupies these powerful offices obscures a larger problem: State attorneys general have become de facto tech regulators partly because lawmakers have failed to act.
“I would warn against a model where litigation is a substitute for legislation,” he says. “Going after single companies is not necessarily the solution, but it is an understandable byproduct of seeing the legislative process in some states has fallen apart.”
