For over a century, public antitrust enforcement in the United States has been led almost exclusively by state and federal officials, based on federal and state antitrust law. Rarely have cities sought to prosecute anticompetitive conduct at the municipal level.
That may soon change in New York City under new Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
After campaigning on affordability, and appointing two former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials to key positions, Mayor Mamdani is reportedly examining ways to target anticompetitive prices in New York City, in a way that could suggest a new form of NYC-based competition enforcement.
In November 2025, Mayor Mamdani appointed former FTC Chair Lisa Khan to co-chair his transition team. In December, Mr. Mamdani appointed Sam Levine, the former Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, as Commissioner of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection.
In that role, Commissioner Levine will have authority to outlaw and prosecute “deceptive” and “unconscionable” trade practices under New York City’s 1969 Consumer Protection Law. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-700. The statute defines an “unconscionable” trade practice as one that “unfairly takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of a consumer; or results in a gross disparity between the value received by a consumer and the price paid, to the consumer’s detriment.”
According to Semafor, with Ms. Khan’s guidance, the Mamdani Administration is considering using this “unconscionable” prong of the Consumer Protection Law to regulate high prices often linked to competition concerns, such as drug pricing at hospitals and concession pricing at sports stadiums. These efforts appear more akin to competition enforcement than the “deceptive” trade practices typically regulated under the law.
Indeed, Ms. Kahn’s spokesman told the New York Times that her team of “former federal enforcers and regulators,” many of whom have antirust backgrounds, have “worked closely” with Mayor Mamdani’s transition team “to provide key research support on ideas for hitting the ground running.” This includes, according to the Times, “dusting off a little used 1960’s price-gouging statute,” a reference to the “unconscionable” prong of the Consumer Protection Law.
It is still too early to know whether Mayor Mamdani will in fact seek to use the Consumer Protection Law to address antitrust concerns as opposed to more traditional consumer protection efforts.
But a review of the Consumer Protection Law suggests that the statute is likely broad enough to encompass both types of enforcement and thus could provide a legal framework for Mayor Mamdani to pursue antitrust-like enforcement at the municipal level—even without a standalone NYC antitrust statute or meaningful precedent for antitrust enforcement at City Hall.
The Consumer Protection Law gives Commissioner Levine wide discretion to promulgate rules outlawing “unconscionable” business practices so long as they “are not inconsistent with” those of the FTC or federal courts’ interpretation of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act. Notably, Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act bans, among other things, “unfair methods of competition,” including violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.
Thus, by tracking section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, New York City’s Consumer Protection Law appears to confer the Mamdani administration with authority to regulate anticompetitive conduct at the city level, even if the statute historically has not been used for that purpose. Under the statute, Commissioner Levine could regulate anticompetitive conduct affecting city residents so long as (1) it meets the definition of “unconscionable,” i.e., it unfairly takes advantage of a consumer or results in a gross disparity between price and value; and (2) such enforcement does not contradict the FTC’s rules or related federal precedent.
Courts have held that the Commissioner’s rational promulgation of rules under the Consumer Protection Law is entitled to deference and that the legislative history of the statute “leaves no doubt” that the Commissioner has “broad jurisdiction [to regulate] unfair trade practices.” See Mintz v. American Tax Relief, LLC, 16 Misc. 3d 517, 522 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2007).
While city officials do not appear to have used the Consumer Protection Law for antitrust purposes previously, courts have upheld price-related rules issued under the statute’s “unconscionability” prong before. In 2021, a federal court in the Southern District of New York upheld an emergency rule under the Consumer Protection Law that prohibited price gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Union Square Supply Inc. v. De Blasio, 572 F. Supp. 3d 15, 18-19 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2021).
And in 1981, a New York state court upheld a rule under the Consumer Protection Law that prohibited businesses from selling goods above a manufacturer’s suggested retail price without disclosing it. New York v. Toby’s Electronics, Inc., 110 Misc. 2d 848, 856 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1981). The court held that failing to disclose the suggested retail price met the statutory definition of both a deceptive and unconscionable trade practice, and the new pricing rule was not inconsistent with FTC guidance or federal antitrust law. Indeed, the court defended the law based on intra-brand competition concerns typically raised in the antitrust context, ruling that the rule helps consumers “comparison shop” and “make an informed choice whether to pay a price higher than that available at other retail stores in the same trade area.”
Given the broad scope of the Consumer Protection Law, which largely tracks the FTC’s dual antitrust and consumer-protection authority, the recent exodus of officials from the FTC to the Mamdani Administration may signal more than just a post-election shift in personnel. It may signal that FTC-like enforcement is coming to NYC, perhaps with some form of progressive antitrust regulation in the mold of Lina Kahn.
If that proves true, New York City’s Consumer Protection Law could emerge as a new, unlikely front in the push for broader antitrust enforcement.
