Our speakers provided an overview of the key antitrust enforcement priorities and trends across the EU, UK, US and Asia Pacific. As companies globally face the challenges presented by supply chain disruption, input shortages, cost increases and tariff uncertainties, authorities are clamping down on collusive responses to these challenges –…

On 22 May 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Joint Statement of Interest in a lawsuit led by the State of Texas against three large investment companies. The lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has been joined by 10 other states and accuses the asset managers of using their positions in climate-focused investment initiatives to manipulate coal markets, driving up the cost of energy and resulting in higher energy prices for American consumers. This action, as the DOJ publicly notes, is the first formal statement by the Agencies in federal court on the antitrust implications of common shareholdings

Our popular Annual Compliance Conference, which attracts senior in-house legal and compliance professionals every year from across the world, will be held virtually from 3 to 12 June 2025.

The conference will provide you with valuable insights from our international trade, compliance and investigations, regulatory and antitrust lawyers. We will delve into critical topics shaping the future of global businesses such as sanctions, export controls, customs and tariffs, national security laws, antitrust, product regulation, ESG and related enforcement trends.

On 13 February 2025, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced the launch of a new online portal to help track and arrest international fugitives believed to be evading prosecution for anticompetitive crimes by remaining abroad. Specifically, the portal features information on individuals who have been publicly charged with competition crimes but have not yet answered the charges in federal court. The portal currently provides identifying information for more than 70 international fugitives charged in connection with DOJ’s long-standing investigations into price fixing and bid rigging conspiracies related to automotive parts, fuel supply contracts to the US Department of Defense, air cargo, and international shipping, among others.

On January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission replaced the 2016 Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals. The new guidelines now titled, Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers, reaffirm the major points of the 2016 guidelines. Wage-fixing and no poach agreements remain illegal and sharing wage information may violate the antitrust laws. However, the new guidelines identify a slew of other agreements and practices that can violate antitrust laws, including franchisee agreements with employment restraints, non-compete clauses, overly broad non-disclosure agreements, and other employment restraints.

On January 14, 2025, the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division and Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a Joint Statement, asserting that non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) undermine whistleblower protection laws, including the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act (CAARA), when they deter or prevent an employee from coming forward. The Antitrust Division noted they are focused on allowing individuals to report antitrust violations without the fear of retaliation. The Joint Statement also warns against using NDAs as an improper shield to obstruct an investigation, which may result in separate federal criminal violations for companies.

On December 11, 2024, the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission announced the withdrawal of the 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. These guidelines outlined the agencies’ views on how competitor collaborations should be analyzed under the antitrust laws and provided “safety zones” for certain types of collaborations that the agencies stated would not be subject to challenge.
The FTC vote to withdraw the guidelines was 3-2, with the two Republican commissioners writing dissenting statements criticizing the FTC’s Democratic leadership for the timing of its decision—noting the upcoming change of administration and the lack of action for the preceding ~four years.

On 12 November 2024, the US Department of Justice Antitrust Division updated its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (ECCP). The additions include guidance such as using “managers at all levels” to “set the tone from the middle” by “demonstrating to employees the importance of compliance,” establishing policies that account for the use of “ephemeral messaging or non-company methods of communication,” applying “data analytics tools in . . . compliance and monitoring,” and involving compliance personnel in “the deployment of AI and other technologies to assess the risks they may pose.” Additionally, the ECCP now addresses its application to civil investigations.

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied appeals from both parties from the December 1, 2023, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversing DOJ’s criminal conviction of a former executive of an aluminum products manufacturer for failure to state a per se antitrust offense under the Sherman Act. The Fourth Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying the per se rule without considering that the alleged scheme took place within the context of a “dual distribution” relationship among competing bidders, who also maintained a supplier relationship. The Fourth Circuit denied DOJ’s petition for an en banc rehearing.

The US District Court for the Southern District of Texas has granted a motion to dismiss the FTC’s lawsuit filed by private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (WCAS), but denied the motion to dismiss filed by its minority-owned portfolio company, US Anesthesiology Partners, Inc. (USAP). The FTC alleged that WCAS and USAP developed and pursued an anticompetitive acquisition strategy to “roll-up” multiple Texas-based aesthesia practices in violation of federal antitrust law. The court granted WCAS’s motion to dismiss because it found that its minority, non-controlling stake in USAP was insufficient to support a violation of federal antitrust law.