According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2417 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the State of Texas. The bill primarily modifies procedural and legal aspects of how the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) manages and protects materials generated during antitrust investigations. Specifically, it designates certain interview notes and memoranda as confidential attorney work product and clarifies the OAG’s discovery responsibilities during litigation.

The Office of the Attorney General has indicated that it does not anticipate incurring additional costs as a result of these changes. The bill imposes no new administrative burdens or operational obligations that would require increased staffing, infrastructure, or resource allocations. It instead offers procedural protections and legal clarity likely to streamline internal operations rather than expand them.

Additionally, there are no projected fiscal implications for local governments. The legislation does not affect local government responsibilities, programs, or revenue streams. As such, no material fiscal impact is anticipated at the municipal or county level either.

SB 2417 represents a significant shift in how the Texas Attorney General’s Office handles antitrust investigations and enforcement litigation under the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983. While the bill is presented as a response to the practical burdens encountered during high-profile antitrust cases, notably the Google Ad Tech litigation, it enacts sweeping changes that raise serious liberty concerns. The legislation would broadly classify all interview notes and memoranda developed during the Attorney General’s investigations as attorney work product, shielding them from both discovery requests and public information access. Additionally, it establishes the Attorney General as the sole party for discovery purposes, precluding claims that the office controls documents held by the Legislature or other state entities.

These provisions, while administratively convenient, conflict with several foundational liberty principles. First, the bill undermines Individual Liberty and Due Process by severely restricting access to potentially relevant investigatory material once litigation begins. The blanket classification of internal documents as protected, regardless of their factual content or significance, creates legal asymmetry in antitrust disputes. Private individuals or businesses accused of violations may be unable to adequately challenge the state’s case or obtain exculpatory information necessary for their defense. The result is a state-enforced advantage in litigation, without adequate judicial oversight.

Second, the bill erodes the principle of Limited Government by concentrating discretion and information control within the executive branch. It provides the Attorney General with broad authority to withhold records without procedural checks, raising the risk of overreach and opacity. There are no provisions for independent review of the confidentiality claims, nor any limits on the scope or duration of the protection. This lack of balance conflicts with the constitutional vision of government as accountable to both the people and other branches.

Third, the legislation may infringe upon Private Property Rights and fair commercial practices. Antitrust litigation often affects core aspects of business operations, market access, and contractual freedom. When the state acts as both prosecutor and gatekeeper of relevant evidence, it may impair the rights of businesses to defend themselves against accusations with substantial economic consequences. Without access to relevant information — even indirectly referenced through notes or interviews — defendants could face enforcement outcomes based more on procedural disadvantage than on demonstrable wrongdoing.

For these reasons, SB 2417 substantially undermines liberty principles and should not be supported in its current form. However, the bill’s underlying goal — enhancing the efficiency and confidentiality of valid state enforcement — could be met without sacrificing fairness or accountability. It should be amended to include judicial review of withheld documents, a narrower and more clearly defined scope of what qualifies as protected work product, and safeguards ensuring discovery rights for defendants in litigation. Only with such revisions would the legislation align more closely with constitutional values and principles of justice.

As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2417 unless amended as described above.

• Individual Liberty: The bill diminishes procedural safeguards that protect individuals and businesses from state overreach in legal proceedings. By shielding all interview notes and memoranda taken by the Attorney General’s Office from discovery and public access, even after enforcement actions are filed, the bill restricts the ability of defendants to obtain information that could be critical to their defense. This one-sided secrecy infringes upon the principle of due process, which is foundational to individual liberty. Liberty does not mean just freedom from physical restraint, but also the right to fair treatment in adversarial proceedings — a standard the bill compromises.
• Personal Responsibility: The principle of personal responsibility presumes equal accountability under the law. The bill effectively carves out a special legal exemption for the state by allowing the Attorney General to avoid typical discovery obligations that private parties are bound by. This creates an unequal playing field and reduces institutional accountability. When public officials are given unchecked discretion to withhold information, it dilutes the norms of responsible conduct that this principle seeks to uphold.
• Free Enterprise: A robust antitrust enforcement regime is vital for protecting market competition, but that enforcement must occur within a framework that respects procedural fairness. By allowing the Attorney General to insulate investigatory materials from scrutiny, the bill may deter legitimate business practices out of fear that investigations could proceed with little transparency or opportunity for rebuttal. The bill thereby risks chilling innovation and lawful market behavior, particularly for smaller firms lacking the resources to contest opaque enforcement actions.
• Private Property Rights: The bill undermines the ability of individuals and businesses to fully protect their property and reputational interests in legal disputes with the state. When the government initiates litigation that could result in significant fines, structural remedies, or reputational damage, the affected parties have a right to access relevant evidence. Shielding information based solely on internal classification — without judicial review — undermines this protection. Property rights are not secure if enforcement tools can be wielded without reciprocal transparency or evidentiary fairness.
• Limited Government: This is the principle most directly impacted by the bill. The bill expands the unilateral power of the Attorney General’s Office by granting it new statutory exemptions from both the Texas Public Information Act and standard discovery procedures. These exemptions remove external checks and consolidate investigatory discretion within the executive branch. In doing so, the bill weakens legislative and judicial oversight and limits the mechanisms citizens and litigants have to hold the government accountable. A core tenet of limited government is that no public actor operates above scrutiny — yet this bill moves in the opposite direction.