A coalition of state attorneys general led by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is warning major corporations that participating in coordinated “plastics sustainability” initiatives could expose them to serious antitrust and consumer protection liability, according to a letter obtained by The Daily Wire.
The letter, sent Tuesday, targeted 78 companies affiliated with several prominent plastics and packaging advocacy groups, including Amazon, Lego, Intel, and Microsoft. The attorneys general argue that collective commitments to eliminate products, reduce packaging options, or alter product quality may unlawfully restrain trade by limiting output and bypassing normal market competition.
The warning focuses on companies involved with the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. These organizations promote industry-wide targets aimed at reducing or eliminating certain plastic products and mandating recyclability and content standards. According to the attorneys general, those targets are not simply aspirational—they function as coordinated pressure campaigns that can distort markets and harm consumers.
This letter follows earlier warnings sent directly to the advocacy groups in October, escalating scrutiny from the organizational level to individual company participation.
The attorneys general warn that companies that continue to adhere to or enforce these policies may face enforcement under the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as state and federal consumer protection laws. The letter emphasizes that membership in an industry association does not shield companies from liability if their conduct results in reduced output, degraded product quality, or higher prices.
Collective action lies at the heart of the concern. The advocacy groups themselves have acknowledged that their goals cannot be achieved through individual corporate decisions alone, but require coordinated commitments across competing firms—a hallmark of the kind of conduct antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
The letter draws on legal scrutiny of so-called “net-zero alliances”—industry groups that coordinated commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—as a cautionary example. In those cases, state attorneys general raised antitrust, fiduciary, and consumer protection concerns because competitors aligned on output-related targets and standards instead of competing independently. Some companies responded by withdrawing from the alliances, causing the initiatives to dissolve or weaken without full enforcement actions.
The attorneys general argue this history is instructive because the plastics advocacy groups at issue rely on similar coordinated commitments across multiple companies, which can produce the same anti-competitive effects antitrust law seeks to prevent.
The letter also cites a recent federal court ruling allowing antitrust and consumer protection claims against BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street to proceed. The court found that allegations of coordinated climate commitments leading to reduced output and market manipulation could support legal claims. The attorneys general contend that this precedent directly applies to plastics initiatives.
The letter stresses that environmental or social intentions do not exempt companies from antitrust law. Even for public-interest reasons, courts have consistently held that agreements to restrict output or reduce quality remain illegal. As the attorneys general note, no legal exception allows companies to collude to “protect consumers from their own choices.”
Beyond antitrust concerns, the attorneys general warn that companies may mislead consumers if they promote sustainability targets that are unrealistic, artificially imposed, or unlikely to be met—particularly if they fail to disclose the costs, tradeoffs, or feasibility of those commitments.
Attorney General Uthmeier framed the warning as a response to ideological pressure on corporations. “Multiple advocacy organizations have pressured companies into artificially changing the output and quality of their goods and services in ways that normal market forces would not otherwise bring about,” Uthmeier said. “Advocacy for a particular agenda is not a basis to mislead consumers.”
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, compared the plastics initiatives to ESG-driven net-zero alliances. “When corporations coordinate through advocacy groups to restrict products, degrade quality, or manipulate markets outside normal competitive forces, that raises serious antitrust and consumer protection concerns,” Isaac said. “Coordinated pressure to eliminate products or reduce quality without regard to consumer demand is not sustainability—it is cartel-like behavior dressed up in advocacy language.”
Will Hild, Executive Director of Consumers’ Research, framed the letter as broader pushback against ESG-driven coordination. “State Attorneys General are sending a clear message to corporate America: you cannot collude with woke activists to push a political agenda and expect to escape scrutiny,” Hild said. “These plastics initiatives are not about serving consumers; they are about quietly eliminating products, reducing quality, and driving up costs.”
The attorneys general now demand that companies explain the legal basis for continued participation in these initiatives and provide documents showing why their conduct does not violate antitrust or consumer protection laws. The letter warns that failure to respond could trigger subpoenas or other compulsory legal action.
Requests for comment sent to Amazon, Intel, Lego, and Microsoft were not returned before publication.
.png)
.png)
