Small‑business advocates back stronger state antitrust powers in bid to curb corporate market abuses

A coalition of small‑business advocates, local‑economy groups and policy researchers urged the Joint Committee on the Judiciary to strengthen Massachusetts’ antitrust enforcement amid concerns federal enforcement has weakened and corporate concentration has harmed local businesses and workers. The testimony centered on Senate Bill 10 38 / House Bill 19 82, which supporters described as a targeted update to the state's antitrust statute to clarify unlawful conduct and empower the attorney general to act more effectively against anti‑competitive practices. Theodore Skiatas of Cambridge Local First, Puja Poude and Ron Knox of the Institute for Local Self‑Reliance testified the bill would restore clearer, predictable rules and enable the AG to police market abuses that block competitors, raise prices and suppress wages. Witnesses pointed to sectors they said show harms: pharmacy chains and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that use spread pricing to squeeze independent pharmacies; discriminatory supplier pricing that disadvantages small grocery operators; and consolidation in health care and tech that reduces bargaining power for workers. Pooja Poude cited evidence of price disparities in grocery pricing between lower‑income neighborhoods and affluent areas, and small‑business advocates said state enforcement has been hobbled by narrow federal antitrust precedents requiring complex economic proofs. Trade groups and some business representatives did not support the bill at the hearing; tech‑industry witnesses argued the bill could chill pro‑competitive innovation and impose litigation risks on successful firms. The bill’s supporters said the legislation aims to provide “clear rules of the road” and would make it easier for the attorney general to pursue mergers or conduct that harms workers, consumers and entrepreneurs without discarding federal standards. Committee members asked about interplay with federal antitrust law and about specific remedies; witnesses said they expect Massachusetts to continue to coordinate with federal enforcement while setting state‑specific standards that reflect local market realities. The attorney general’s office and other state agencies were not prominent in the panel, and sponsors said they will work across stakeholder groups to refine statutory language to reduce litigation risk while improving enforceability.