WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 219

Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Ed Charbonneau and 4 co-sponsors

Indiana establishes state-level pre-merger notification requirements allowing antitrust review of acquisitions before closing to protect local market competition from federal oversight gaps.

Committee report: amend do pass, adopted
#businessorganizationsandassociations;generally #civillawandprocedure;liabilities #damages #andpenalties #publicrecords #realestateappraisers #brokers #andsalespersons #stateelectedofficials;attorneygeneral #traderegulations;antitrustsandmonopolies
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 219

Legislative bill overview

SB 219 establishes a uniform antitrust pre-merger notification framework for Indiana, requiring companies to provide advance notice to state authorities before completing certain mergers and acquisitions. The bill aims to standardize the state's merger review process and give Indiana regulatory agencies time to assess competitive impacts before deals close.

Why is this important

Currently, merger oversight relies primarily on federal agencies (FTC, DOJ), leaving states with limited visibility into transactions that could harm local competition or consumer welfare. This bill would give Indiana independent authority to review and potentially challenge mergers that affect state markets, particularly in healthcare, agriculture, and retail sectors important to the state's economy.

Potential points of contention

  • Compliance burden: Small and mid-sized businesses may face increased costs and delays from dual federal-state notification requirements, potentially discouraging Indiana-based acquisitions
  • Regulatory overlap and conflicts: State-level review could contradict federal antitrust decisions, creating legal uncertainty and forcing companies to navigate conflicting state and federal standards
  • Definition of covered transactions: The threshold for which mergers trigger notification (deal size, market share percentages) will determine scope; overly broad definitions could chill legitimate business combinations while narrow ones may miss problematic deals

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.