Since the start of President Trump's second administration, some State Attorneys General (AGs) have actively responded to executive orders and policy directives, including by initiating legal challenges in federal courts. Now State AGs may take on yet another role: filling the gap in federal enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
As we previously discussed in detail here, on February 10, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause the Justice Department's enforcement of the FCPA, a federal statute that prohibits bribing foreign officials to obtain or retain business. 15 U.S.C. ' 78dd-1, et seq. Since then, the Justice Department has publicly dismissed a high-profile FCPA prosecution of two executives and has directed FCPA prosecutors to pursue other priorities.
In response, on April 2, 2025, California AG Rob Bonta issued a legal advisory stating that, notwithstanding President Trump's pause on FCPA enforcement, FCPA violations remain actionable under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). AG Bonta thus signaled to businesses: don't let up on anti-corruption compliance efforts. Other state AGs, such as those in Massachusetts and New York, have similar state statutes at their disposal that could allow them to initiate anti-corruption enforcement. With these state laws providing a private right of action, private plaintiffs and even regulators in other countries may drive enforcement. While practical challenges and resource constraints may pose some limitations on these efforts, an effective compliance program remains the best defense against corruption risk.
State Unfair Competition Laws
California's UCL, enacted to preserve fair business competition and protect consumers, broadly prohibits unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices. BUS. & PROF. CODE, ' 17200 et seq. As noted in AG Bonta's legal advisory, California courts recognize that violations of federal laws, including the FCPA, may thus be independently actionable as unfair business practices under the UCL. See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1144 (2003). The Supreme Court of California in Korea Supply Co. accepted that the UCL claim may be predicated on an FCPA violation, where the plaintiff there alleged that the defendant competing bidder prevailed in its bid by offering bribes and sexual favors to contracting officials in Korea. See id. at 1143-44, n.5.
With AG Bonta opening the door for state AG enforcement, other AG offices looking for novel or aggressive enforcement theories may follow California's lead. Companies whose business implicates contact with foreign officials should therefore be wary of possible new regulators in this space.
For example, Massachusetts and New York may represent the next most likely candidates to entertain such an approach, as both states' AG offices aggressively pursue similarly broad unfair...
