Monopolies and Anti-Trust Actions in the US

SubPage-Summary Monopolies and Anti-Trust Actions in the US

YouTube: Anti-Trust History and Current Actions

Video File:From Railroad Barons to AI Algorithms.m4a

Trump Administration, Political Influence, and Pay-to-Play Concerns

Paramount Refused to Air an Ad Criticizing Its Merger With Warner Bros.

| Vittoria Elliott | WIRED | June 16, 2026

Paramount refused to air an advertisement from the Freedom of the Press Foundation criticizing its Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition and David Ellison’s ties to Trump. The article is relevant because critics saw the merger as a threat to independent journalism and argued that political relationships could affect both antitrust review and editorial independence.

Paramount Skydance Merger With Warner Bros. Discovery Won’t Harm Competition, DOJ Says

| AP Staff | Associated Press | June 13, 2026

This Associated Press report explains DOJ’s reasoning for allowing the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery deal to proceed. It is useful because it shows how regulators may now accept arguments that consolidation can help legacy media companies compete with larger technology and streaming platforms.

DOJ Approves Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal

| AP Staff | Associated Press | June 13, 2026

The Justice Department concluded that Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery was unlikely to harm competition, despite criticism from labor groups, state officials, and media-consolidation watchdogs. The decision is important because it shows how U.S. antitrust enforcement is still struggling with how to evaluate giant media mergers in an era dominated by streaming platforms and Big Tech.

US Justice Department Clears Paramount’s Acquisition of Warner Bros.

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 12, 2026

The Justice Department cleared Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, saying the deal was unlikely to harm competition. The approval drew criticism because of the broader political context around Paramount, CBS, the Ellison family’s ties to Trump, and earlier concerns over regulatory approvals connected to Trump-related settlements.

US Justice Department Approves $111 Billion Merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery

| Guardian Staff | The Guardian | June 12, 2026

This article reports DOJ approval of the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery deal and highlights criticism from lawmakers and media-watchdog groups. It is useful because it explicitly connects the antitrust approval to broader concerns about political influence, media consolidation, and Trump-aligned ownership interests.

Justice Department Says Paramount’s Warner Deal Wouldn’t Harm Competition

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 12, 2026

The Justice Department approved Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, saying the deal was unlikely to harm competition or consumers. The approval is a major recent trend signal: federal enforcers are still reviewing huge mergers, but they may be more willing to clear some deals, especially when companies argue they need scale to compete with dominant technology and streaming platforms.

DOJ Approves Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

| Sara Fischer | Axios | June 12, 2026

Axios reported that the Justice Department approved the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger without requiring divestitures or other conditions. The article is useful for recent-trends analysis because it shows a more permissive merger outcome at the federal level, while also noting that state officials may still consider separate challenges.

U.S. Justice Department Clears Paramount’s Acquisition of Warner Bros.

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 12, 2026

The Justice Department cleared Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, concluding that the deal was unlikely to reduce competition or harm consumers. The approval is a strong example of the current trend toward permitting some major mergers, even when states, unions, and critics continue to raise consolidation concerns.

Lawmakers Say Trump NFL Probe Aimed at Helping Fox Get a Better Deal

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 10, 2026

Democratic lawmakers alleged that a DOJ probe into NFL broadcast practices may have been politically influenced to help Fox, following reported lobbying by Rupert Murdoch. The issue involves sports broadcasting and antitrust exemptions, and it fits the “friends and enemies” theme because critics argued the probe may have reflected political favoritism rather than neutral competition policy.

At Spotlight Forum, Democrats Sound Alarm on DOJ Antitrust Settlement Allowing Live Nation-Ticketmaster to Continue Abusing Monopoly

| House Judiciary Democrats | U.S. House Judiciary Committee | May 19, 2026

House Democrats criticized DOJ’s handling of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case and argued that companies had learned to hire Trump-aligned lobbyists, make contributions to Trump-affiliated political efforts, and seek favorable settlements. The article is strongly framed from a Democratic perspective, but it directly addresses the concern that antitrust enforcement may be becoming pay-to-play.

Healthcare Emerges at the Center of Trump 2.0 Antitrust Enforcement

| Wiley Rein | Wiley Rein | May 4, 2026

This analysis argues that healthcare has become a central area of current antitrust enforcement, including mergers, provider contracting, medical devices, labor restraints, and pharmacy benefit managers. It is useful because recent trends are not just about Big Tech; healthcare markets remain a major enforcement target because consolidation can affect prices, access, and wages.

Heard at the 2026 Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting

| McDermott Will & Emery | McDermott Will & Emery | March 30, 2026

This article summarizes takeaways from the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, including Trump 2.0 enforcement priorities, artificial intelligence, labor-market scrutiny, private-equity oversight, and global trends. It is useful because it shows that the conversation among antitrust practitioners remains broad and active even if some merger enforcement has become more settlement-oriented.

CLE Takeaways — Trump 2.0: Antitrust Enforcement Trends and Deal Planning Strategies for 2026

| Fenwick | Fenwick | March 3, 2026

This article explains that federal antitrust agencies have returned to some pre-Biden merger-review practices, including early terminations and phased investigations. It is useful because it helps explain why some observers may feel there are fewer antitrust actions: the agencies may be clearing more deals earlier while still focusing on selected high-priority areas.

Federal Agencies Signal Return to More Traditional Merger Review Practices

| Fenwick | Fenwick | March 3, 2026

This article explains that federal antitrust agencies have signaled they do not intend to block unproblematic transactions and have returned to practices such as early terminations and phased investigations. It is important because it helps explain why enforcement may appear lighter in merger review even while agencies continue pursuing conduct cases and selected major deals.

Live Nation’s Monopoly Trial Is Reportedly Fracturing Trump’s Justice Department

| Lauren Feiner | The Verge | February 9, 2026

This article summarizes reports that Live Nation executives bypassed ordinary antitrust channels and sought settlement discussions with higher-level DOJ officials. It is useful because it shows how the Live Nation case became a test of whether politically connected companies could avoid tougher antitrust remedies.

Live Nation Settlement Talks Are Dividing Trump’s DOJ

| Shelby Talcott and Liz Hoffman | Semafor | February 8, 2026

Semafor reported that settlement talks in the Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust case divided Trump’s DOJ, with politically connected figures such as Kellyanne Conway and Mike Davis involved in advising Live Nation. The article is relevant because it describes a company accused of monopoly power allegedly seeking more favorable treatment through Trump-aligned channels.

One Year Into Trump 2.0, Antitrust Agencies Continue to Evolve

| Hogan Lovells | Hogan Lovells | January 23, 2026

This analysis argues that the new antitrust agenda has not simply abandoned enforcement, but has shifted emphasis. It highlights continuing concern over “Big Monopoly,” algorithmic pricing, labor competition, and technology markets, while also suggesting that enforcement style and political priorities have changed.

Trump-CBS Lawsuit Settlement Was ‘Right Decision,’ Says Former Paramount Chair Shari Redstone

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | December 3, 2025

Former Paramount chair Shari Redstone defended the company’s $16 million settlement with Trump, while critics argued that the payment appeared connected to Paramount’s need for regulatory approval of its Skydance merger. This article is useful because it gives the company-side view while also acknowledging the criticism that the settlement may have helped smooth a politically sensitive merger review.

Trump’s Campaign of Retribution: At Least 470 Targets and Counting

| Reuters Investigates | Reuters | November 26, 2025

This Reuters investigation tracks Trump’s broader use of government pressure against perceived political opponents. It is not limited to antitrust, but it provides context for the “enemies” side of the question: concerns about antitrust politicization sit within a larger debate over whether federal power is being used against perceived adversaries.

Lawmakers Say Paramount Skydance ‘Stonewalling’ Probe Into Trump Merger Approval

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | November 12, 2025

House Democrats accused Paramount Skydance of obstructing a congressional investigation into the Trump administration’s approval of the company’s merger. The scrutiny followed the merger’s approval after Paramount settled Trump’s lawsuit, and lawmakers sought documents on the settlement, communications, and any promised advertising or other benefits connected to the approval process.

Senators Sound Alarm After YouTube Settled Trump Lawsuit Amid DOJ Antitrust Case

| Office of Senator Ron Wyden | U.S. Senate | October 20, 2025

Senators Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, and colleagues demanded answers from Google and YouTube about whether the company’s Trump settlement was connected to federal antitrust treatment. The letter is important because it directly raised the possibility of a quid pro quo involving a private payment to Trump and government action involving Google.

YouTube to Pay $24.5 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Trump’s Account Suspension

| AP Staff | PBS NewsHour | September 30, 2025

YouTube agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over his account suspension after January 6. The payment is relevant to antitrust because Google, YouTube’s parent company, was simultaneously facing major DOJ antitrust cases, leading lawmakers to question whether the settlement might be connected to federal regulatory treatment.

Trump Administration Drops Defense of Ban on Employee Noncompete Agreements

| Daniel Wiessner | Reuters | September 8, 2025

The Trump administration dropped its defense of the FTC’s nationwide noncompete ban. The article is important because it explains one area where enforcement clearly became less sweeping: broad rulemaking declined, while case-by-case labor enforcement continued.

Trump Administration Drops Defense of FTC Noncompete Ban

| Daniel Wiessner | Reuters | September 8, 2025

The Trump administration dropped appeals defending the FTC’s nationwide ban on worker noncompete agreements. The article is important because noncompetes are one of the clearest links between antitrust law and labor rights, affecting whether workers can change jobs, start businesses, and bargain for higher wages.

Durbin and Booker Lead Judiciary Democrats Letter to Attorney General Bondi on Politicization of Antitrust Enforcement

| Office of Senator Dick Durbin | U.S. Senate | September 5, 2025

Senate Judiciary Democrats wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi expressing concern about politicization of antitrust enforcement, especially the HPE-Juniper settlement. The letter is relevant because lawmakers explicitly questioned whether DOJ antitrust decisions were being shaped by political access, lobbyists, and pressure from senior officials.

Trump FTC Takes Action Against Worker Noncompete Agreements

| Daniel Wiessner | Reuters | September 4, 2025

The FTC took action against a company using noncompete agreements and signaled that it may continue bringing targeted cases even after broader national noncompete rules faced legal and political obstacles. The article shows how labor-market antitrust enforcement can continue through individual cases even when sweeping rulemaking is limited.

Letter to Google and YouTube Regarding Potential Trump Settlement

| Elizabeth Warren and Senate Colleagues | U.S. Senate | August 7, 2025

Senators warned Google and YouTube against settling Trump’s lawsuit in exchange for favorable action by his administration. This is one of the most direct documents connecting Trump-related payments, antitrust scrutiny, and the concern that companies may try to buy regulatory favor.

MAGA Antitrust Agenda Under Siege by Lobbyists Close to Trump

| Dave Michaels and Annie Linskey | The Wall Street Journal | August 6, 2025

This article reported that lobbyists close to Trump helped companies press for favorable antitrust outcomes, including HPE’s settlement over the Juniper merger. The report is important because it describes a pattern in which companies facing antitrust scrutiny allegedly used politically connected intermediaries and job-creation arguments to appeal to senior Trump officials.

Judiciary Democrats Probe DOJ’s Settlement of HPE-Juniper Merger

| House Judiciary Democrats | U.S. House Judiciary Committee | August 1, 2025

House Judiciary Democrats opened an inquiry into DOJ’s HPE-Juniper settlement after reports that senior Trump officials overruled antitrust experts. The article is useful because it documents congressional concern that antitrust decision-making may have been affected by political appointees and lobbyists rather than ordinary legal analysis.

US Clears Way for $8 Billion Paramount-Skydance Merger

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | July 25, 2025

U.S. regulators approved the Paramount-Skydance merger shortly after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle Donald Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said the approval was unrelated to the civil lawsuit, but the timing drew criticism from press-freedom advocates and Democratic officials who saw the merger approval as raising serious questions about political influence over media regulation.

Comment of Former DOJ Antitrust Professionals on HPE-Juniper Settlement

| Former DOJ Antitrust Professionals | U.S. Department of Justice Filing | July 24, 2025

Former DOJ Antitrust Division professionals submitted comments criticizing the proposed HPE-Juniper settlement. The filing is important because it shows that concerns over politicization were not only coming from elected officials or outside advocates, but also from people with experience inside antitrust enforcement.

Following Paramount’s $16 Million Settlement With President Trump, Senators Urge FCC to Hold Full Vote

| Office of Senator Ben Ray Luján | U.S. Senate | July 14, 2025

Senators Ben Ray Luján and Ed Markey urged the FCC to hold a full commission vote on the Paramount-Skydance merger after Paramount agreed to settle Trump’s lawsuit. The letter framed the settlement as troubling because it occurred while Paramount was seeking government approval for a major media transaction.

Trump’s Antitrust Enforcers ‘Get Out of the Way’ of Multibillion-Dollar Deals

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | July 10, 2025

Reuters reported that Trump antitrust enforcers cleared several multibillion-dollar deals in a short period and showed greater willingness to settle than the Biden administration. The article is useful background because it supports the broader trend: the issue may be less that antitrust enforcement stopped and more that politically sensitive settlements and approvals became more common.

Trump Settlement Triggers ‘Widespread Distress’ at CBS News

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | July 2, 2025

Paramount’s $16 million settlement with Trump over CBS’s editing of a “60 Minutes” interview caused alarm inside CBS News and among journalism advocates. The article is relevant to antitrust and merger review because Paramount was also seeking federal approval for its merger with Skydance, creating public concern that a payment to resolve Trump’s lawsuit could be viewed as connected to regulatory approval.

U.S. Justice Department Settles Antitrust Case for HPE’s $14 Billion Takeover of Juniper

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 28, 2025

DOJ settled its lawsuit challenging Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, allowing the deal to proceed with divestiture and licensing remedies. The case became controversial because it began as the Trump administration’s first major merger challenge but later shifted into a settlement that critics said was influenced by political pressure and lobbying.

Meet the New Boss, Not So Different From the Old Boss: Antitrust in the Trump Era

| WilmerHale | WilmerHale | June 2, 2025

This article argues that early signs from the second Trump administration showed continued aggressive antitrust enforcement compared with the pre-Biden era. It is useful because it challenges the idea that a change in administration automatically means very few antitrust actions.

The US Government Is Coming for Google and Meta, But What Will Happen Next?

| Kari Paul | The Guardian | April 22, 2025

This article notes that despite attempts by Meta and other tech leaders to improve relations with Trump, major antitrust cases continued. It is useful as a counterbalance because it suggests that payments, lobbying, or political gestures did not necessarily make antitrust cases disappear.

Zuckerberg Lobbies Trump to Avoid Meta Antitrust Trial

| The Wall Street Journal | Wall Street Journal | April 2, 2025

This article reported that Mark Zuckerberg lobbied Trump as Meta faced an FTC antitrust trial, after Meta had donated to Trump’s inaugural fund and settled Trump’s lawsuit. It is relevant because it directly connects a major antitrust defendant, Trump-related payments or donations, and private lobbying for relief from enforcement.

Meta Agrees to Pay $25 Million to Settle Lawsuit With President Trump

| ABC News Staff | ABC News | January 29, 2025

Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over the suspension of his accounts, including $22 million directed to Trump’s presidential library and $3 million in legal fees. The settlement is relevant because Meta was facing an FTC antitrust case, and the payment raised broader questions about whether large technology companies were trying to repair relations with Trump while under federal scrutiny.

Trump Expected to Shift Course on Antitrust and Stop Google Breakup Push

| Jody Godoy and Mike Scarcella | Reuters | November 6, 2024

After Trump’s election, experts expected his administration to dial back some Biden-era antitrust policies, potentially including efforts to break up Google. This article is useful because it sets the background for later concerns that companies under antitrust scrutiny might seek favorable treatment through lobbying, settlements, or political alignment.

Recent Enforcement Trends, Agency Policy, and State Attorneys General

Antitrust Case Filings

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | Updated regularly

This official DOJ page lists recent Antitrust Division case filings, including civil and criminal matters. It is useful for checking whether enforcement has actually stopped; the page shows that new antitrust cases are still being filed in 2026, even if the mix of cases and remedies has changed.

Stanley Woodward to Run DOJ Antitrust Division, MLex Reports

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 15, 2026

Reuters reported that Stanley Woodward was set to lead the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division after changes in DOJ leadership. The article matters because leadership changes can strongly affect how aggressively the federal government pursues monopoly cases, merger challenges, and competition enforcement.

As State AGs Step Up Enforcement, Plan Early on Merger Processes

| Bloomberg Law | Bloomberg Law | June 2026

This article reports that state attorneys general are increasingly prepared to investigate, challenge, or even seek to unwind mergers. It reinforces the idea that a federal shift toward more settlements or approvals does not necessarily mean fewer antitrust risks overall.

DOJ Antitrust Exits Feed Steady Hires by Private Firms

| Mike Scarcella | Reuters | May 27, 2026

Private law firms have been hiring attorneys leaving the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, reflecting continued churn inside federal competition enforcement. The article is useful background for understanding how staffing, morale, and institutional experience can affect the government’s ability to pursue complex antitrust cases.

State Attorneys General Increase Antitrust and Consumer Protection Enforcement

| Reuters Practical Law Staff | Reuters | May 7, 2026

This article reports that state attorneys general are becoming more active in antitrust and consumer-protection enforcement. The trend matters because even if federal enforcement becomes more selective, states can continue investigating mergers, challenging anticompetitive conduct, and bringing national-scale cases in healthcare, technology, financial services, and other sectors.

FTC to Host Workshop on “Litigate the Fix” Merger Remedy Proposals

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | May 1, 2026

The FTC announced a workshop on late-stage merger remedy proposals, often called “litigate the fix,” where companies propose divestitures or other fixes during litigation rather than earlier in agency review. The event highlights a major current debate in merger enforcement: whether courts should accept last-minute fixes or give more weight to agency concerns about anticompetitive mergers.

Key Trends in State Antitrust Enforcement

| O’Melveny & Myers | O’Melveny & Myers | April 20, 2026

This article describes state antitrust enforcement trends involving Big Tech, algorithmic pricing, ESG, healthcare, merger review, and criminal prosecutions. It is useful because one major recent trend is decentralization: even when federal agencies approve deals or settle cases, state attorneys general may investigate, sue, or demand different remedies.

Antitrust Agency Insights: Developments at the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies, First Quarter 2026

| Arnold & Porter | Arnold & Porter | April 15, 2026

This quarterly update tracks early 2026 developments at the FTC and DOJ, including new guidance efforts for competitor collaborations, algorithmic pricing, information sharing, and labor collaborations. It is useful because it shows that recent antitrust activity is increasingly about rule-of-the-road guidance for new business models, not only traditional merger lawsuits.

Trends and Enforcement Priorities at the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting

| Mayer Brown | Mayer Brown | April 15, 2026

This article summarizes antitrust themes discussed at the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting, including possible effects from DOJ and FTC staffing reductions, more independent state enforcement, and continued focus on Big Tech and digital markets. It is useful for understanding why enforcement may feel uneven: some federal capacity may be constrained, while states and private plaintiffs remain active.

Antitrust Agency Insights: First Quarter 2026

| Arnold & Porter | Arnold & Porter | April 15, 2026

This quarterly update describes early 2026 developments at the FTC and DOJ, including new guidance efforts for business collaborations and agency attention to labor, algorithmic pricing, information sharing, and AI-related markets. It is useful for tracking how enforcement priorities are changing in real time.

Jury Finds Ticketmaster and Live Nation Had Anticompetitive Monopoly Over Big Concert Venues

| AP Staff | Associated Press | April 15, 2026

The Associated Press reported that the Live Nation-Ticketmaster verdict could lead to major damages and possibly structural remedies. The article explains how state attorneys general framed the company’s control over venues and ticketing as harmful to consumers, artists, and competing businesses.

FTC and DOJ Extend Comment Period on Business Collaboration Guidance

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | April 2026

The FTC and DOJ extended the public-comment deadline for updated guidance on business collaborations among competitors. The development is important because cooperation between companies can sometimes create efficiencies, but it can also become a cover for price fixing, market allocation, or other anticompetitive coordination.

Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Seek Public Comment on Guidance for Business Collaborations

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | February 23, 2026

The FTC and DOJ opened a public inquiry on updated guidance for collaborations among competitors, including algorithmic pricing, information sharing, data sharing, joint licensing, conditional dealing, and labor collaborations. This is an important recent trend because antitrust agencies are trying to modernize rules for markets where competitors may coordinate through data systems, software, platforms, or joint ventures.

U.S. Antitrust Enforcers to Revamp Guidelines on Rivals Collaborating

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | February 23, 2026

Reuters reported that DOJ and FTC would seek public input on new guidelines for competitor collaborations, replacing older 2000 guidance that had been withdrawn. The article is useful because it connects the guidance effort to modern concerns about companies that aggregate industry data and advise customers on pricing.

Global Antitrust Enforcement Outlook 2026

| Hogan Lovells | Hogan Lovells | February 18, 2026

This outlook identifies major enforcement trends including broader policy goals, AI-driven enforcement tools, algorithmic coordination, and scrutiny of automated pricing systems. It is useful because U.S. enforcement is part of a global antitrust shift toward digital evidence, algorithmic conduct, and markets where coordination may happen through software rather than old-fashioned meetings.

U.S. Court Blocks Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | February 12, 2026

A federal court blocked an FTC rule that would have required companies to submit more information during premerger review. The decision matters because it may make merger enforcement harder by limiting the information available to regulators early in the review process.

2026 Antitrust Year in Preview: Big Tech

| Wilson Sonsini | Wilson Sonsini | January 22, 2026

This preview focuses on digital-technology antitrust cases and investigations involving major platforms and AI markets. It is useful because it shows that Big Tech litigation is now a continuing pipeline rather than a one-off political campaign, with cases and remedies stretching across multiple years.

Navigating the Evolving Global Antitrust Landscape

| Cleary Gottlieb | Cleary Gottlieb | January 15, 2026

This article argues that 2026 is unlikely to bring a dramatic break in U.S. antitrust policy, but that enforcement has become more accommodating of settlements and less overtly anti-business. It is useful for recent-trends analysis because it supports a middle view: antitrust has not disappeared, but the tone and remedy preferences may be changing.

State AG Enforcement Action: Priorities for 2026

| WilmerHale | WilmerHale | January 9, 2026

This article predicts continued growth in state attorney general antitrust enforcement, especially in healthcare, technology, environmental markets, and consumer protection. It is useful for understanding why enforcement may be decentralizing: states are increasingly acting independently rather than simply following federal agencies.

Antitrust & Competition Outlook for 2026

| Morgan Lewis | Morgan Lewis | January 2026

This outlook highlights AI pricing, Big Tech enforcement, merger trends, and major antitrust cases shaping competition risk in 2026. It is useful as a broad recent-trends source because it shows that antitrust risk remains active across technology, transactions, pricing systems, and litigation even as priorities shift.

Five Must-Watch Antitrust Storylines for 2026

| Mayer Brown | Mayer Brown | December 29, 2025

This article identifies several 2026 antitrust trends, including the return of divestiture remedies, continued agriculture enforcement, labor-market scrutiny, and active merger review. It is useful for understanding why enforcement may look less absolute than during the Biden administration while still remaining significant.

Criminal Enforcement Trends Charts

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | December 4, 2025

This DOJ statistics page tracks criminal antitrust enforcement through fiscal year 2025, including cases filed, corporations and individuals charged, fines, penalties, and jail sentences. It is useful for distinguishing between a decline in some kinds of enforcement and a complete absence of antitrust activity.

Big Tech, AI, Digital Platforms, Algorithms, and Online Markets

Justice Department Requires OhioHealth to Stop Using Anticompetitive Healthcare Contract Terms

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ | June 16, 2026

DOJ announced a settlement requiring OhioHealth to stop using contract restrictions that allegedly raised costs for Ohio patients. This healthcare action is useful evidence that antitrust enforcement continues in provider markets, where hospital contracting practices can affect patient costs and insurer competition.

YachtWorld Operator Defeats Antitrust Lawsuit Over Online Boat Listings

| Jonathan Stempel | Reuters | June 16, 2026

A federal judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Boats Group, the operator of YachtWorld, Boat Trader, and boats.com, after finding that the plaintiff had not shown unlawful harm to competition. The case is useful because it shows the line courts often draw between having market power and violating antitrust law: high prices or a strong market position alone are not enough without proof of anticompetitive conduct.

Amazon May Face FTC Ad-Tech Penalties

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 16, 2026

Amazon may face a new Federal Trade Commission lawsuit over allegations that it misled advertisers about pricing and terms in its online advertising auctions. The report connects consumer-protection concerns with broader competition issues in digital advertising, where Amazon and Google increasingly control the systems that sellers and advertisers must use to reach customers.

Corteva to Pay $85 Million to Settle Farmers’ Pesticide Price Lawsuit

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 11, 2026

Corteva agreed to pay $85 million to settle a farmer class-action lawsuit alleging that the company helped inflate pesticide prices. The case is part of a larger antitrust fight over agricultural input markets, where farmers argue that dominant suppliers and distribution systems can raise costs for essential crop-protection products.

Congress Takes Aim at NFL Antitrust Exemption Over Streaming Costs

| Josh Kosman | New York Post | June 10, 2026

Members of Congress questioned whether the NFL’s long-standing antitrust exemption for pooled broadcast rights still serves the public interest as more games move behind streaming paywalls. The article links antitrust law to everyday consumer costs, showing how old legal exemptions can become controversial when media markets change.

Hospitals Again Ask FTC and DOJ for Exemption From Merger Filing Rules

| Dave Muoio | Fierce Healthcare | June 2026

Hospitals and health systems pushed back against expanded premerger filing requirements, arguing that the rules are too burdensome for healthcare transactions. The article highlights the tension between regulators trying to catch harmful consolidation early and industry groups arguing that merger review can slow down needed partnerships or restructuring.

AI, Algorithmic Pricing, and Information Exchanges

| Fred Ashton | American Action Forum | May 19, 2026

This analysis discusses the DOJ and FTC inquiry into collaboration guidelines through the lens of AI, algorithmic pricing, and information exchanges. It is useful because one of the clearest recent antitrust trends is the attempt to decide when shared data, pricing software, or AI tools become illegal coordination rather than ordinary business intelligence.

Zillow and Redfin Fail to End FTC Rental Competition Lawsuit

| Jonathan Stempel | Reuters | May 7, 2026

A federal judge allowed the FTC’s lawsuit against Zillow and Redfin to proceed over allegations that they suppressed competition in online rental listings. The case shows that housing and rental-platform markets remain a live antitrust target, not just Big Tech search and social media.

DOJ Antitrust Head Warns Dealmakers Not to Mislead on AI

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | May 7, 2026

DOJ’s antitrust leadership warned companies not to use vague claims about artificial intelligence disruption to justify mergers or avoid scrutiny. This article is useful because AI is becoming one of the newest battlegrounds in antitrust, even as agencies debate how aggressive to be.

U.S. Justice Department Settles Agri Stats Meat Pricing Case

| Jody Godoy and David Shepardson | Reuters | May 7, 2026

The Justice Department settled its case against Agri Stats, a data company accused of enabling coordination in meat markets. The settlement is another example of current antitrust enforcement focusing on data sharing, information exchanges, and pricing transparency tools that may reduce competition.

US Justice Department Settles Agri Stats Meat Pricing Case

| Jody Godoy and David Shepardson | Reuters | May 7, 2026

The Justice Department and six states settled their antitrust lawsuit against Agri Stats, a data company accused of enabling anticompetitive coordination in chicken, pork, and turkey markets. The case is important because it shows how modern antitrust enforcement is increasingly focused on data-sharing systems that may allow companies to coordinate prices without an obvious direct agreement.

FTC Takes Action Against Rollins Noncompete Agreements

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | April 23, 2026

The FTC took action against Rollins over noncompete agreements that allegedly restricted worker mobility. This case shows that even after setbacks to the FTC’s broad noncompete rule, the agency can still bring targeted labor-market competition cases.

Antitrust on Aisle Five: How Well Do Divestiture Remedies Work?

| Xiao Dong, Paul Koh, Devesh Raval, Dominic Smith and Brett Wendling | arXiv | April 16, 2026

This study examines grocery-sector divestiture remedies and finds that divested stores often experience declining employment, higher exit rates, and weaker performance after transfer. It is useful because recent antitrust policy may rely more on settlements and divestitures, but the evidence suggests those remedies may not always preserve competition effectively.

Senator Warren Raises Antitrust Concerns Over Nvidia’s Slurm Acquisition

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | April 15, 2026

Senator Elizabeth Warren raised concerns that Nvidia’s acquisition of Slurm could reinforce Nvidia’s power over AI computing infrastructure. The article shows that AI competition issues are increasingly being framed through antitrust, even when the immediate action comes from lawmakers rather than a filed agency complaint.

Deere Settles Right-to-Repair Lawsuit With $99 Million Fund

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | April 7, 2026

Deere agreed to create a $99 million fund and make repair tools more available to resolve a class-action right-to-repair lawsuit brought by farmers. The settlement fits the antitrust theme because restrictions on repair can lock customers into expensive dealer networks and limit competition from independent repair shops.

OpenAI Urges California and Delaware to Investigate Musk’s ‘Anti-Competitive Behavior’

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | April 6, 2026

OpenAI asked the attorneys general of California and Delaware to investigate alleged anti-competitive behavior by Elon Musk and his associates amid litigation between Musk and OpenAI. The article connects antitrust concerns to the AI industry, where lawsuits, investment restrictions, corporate restructuring, and control of future technology markets are increasingly intertwined.

On the Fragility of AI Agent Collusion

| Jussi Keppo, Yuze Li, Gerry Tsoukalas and Nuo Yuan | arXiv | March 18, 2026

This paper studies whether AI pricing agents can sustain collusive outcomes and finds that collusion may be fragile when algorithms differ in data access, patience, or design. It is useful for recent antitrust trends because regulators are increasingly worried about algorithmic collusion, but the real-world risk may depend heavily on how similar the algorithms and market conditions are.

Acquihires Used by Big Tech Are a ‘Red Flag,’ DOJ Antitrust Head Says

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | March 18, 2026

The DOJ’s acting antitrust chief warned that “acquihires,” where a company absorbs another firm’s workers without a traditional merger review, can raise red flags. The article is relevant because major technology companies may use hiring deals, licensing arrangements, or informal acquisitions to gain control over talent and innovation without triggering ordinary merger scrutiny.

Ticketmaster Keeps $7.58 From Each Ticket, New York Attorney Says at Trial

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | March 3, 2026

This trial report gives a close look at the arguments against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, including claims that the company used its control of venues and ticketing to extract fees and restrict competition. It is useful as a courtroom-focused article showing how antitrust claims are built around business contracts, market power, and consumer harm.

Antitrust and AI Become a Central Legal Issue

| Practical Law Staff | Reuters Practical Law | March 1, 2026

This analysis explains how U.S. regulators are examining competition issues in artificial intelligence, including partnerships, cloud computing, chip supply, and dominant technology platforms. It is useful background for understanding why AI has become one of the newest frontiers in American antitrust law.

Antitrust and Competition Technology Year in Review 2025

| Goodwin | Goodwin | February 17, 2026

This year-in-review explains that 2025 technology antitrust enforcement combined continued pressure on Big Tech conduct with a more pragmatic approach to transactions, especially in AI and innovation-driven markets. It suggests a shift in tone rather than a collapse in enforcement.

Looking Ahead on U.S. Antitrust Enforcement and Tech: Will 2026 Deliver More of the Same?

| Max Morgan | Tech Policy Press | January 29, 2026

This article previews major 2026 technology antitrust issues, including Google search remedies, Google ad-tech remedies, Apple, Amazon, Meta, and AI-related competition questions. It is useful because Big Tech enforcement remains one of the clearest areas where antitrust activity has not faded, even though courts may hesitate to order breakups.

Looking Ahead on US Antitrust Enforcement and Tech: Will 2026 Deliver More of the Same?

| Max Morgan | Tech Policy Press | January 29, 2026

This article reviews recent U.S. technology antitrust developments and previews likely 2026 enforcement. It is useful for showing that Big Tech antitrust remains a central issue, with Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, and AI-related competition questions still drawing scrutiny.

Apple Sued Over Alleged Antitrust Violations and Camera Technology

| Blake Brittain | Reuters | January 27, 2026

Apple faced a private lawsuit alleging that its control over the iPhone ecosystem helped it block competing technology and lock users into its platform. The case echoes broader government claims that Apple’s closed system can limit competition in apps, devices, and services connected to smartphones.

Google Must Face Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit Over Search Dominance

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | January 22, 2026

A federal judge allowed consumers to pursue claims that Google used agreements with major technology companies to suppress competition in online search. The ruling is significant because it keeps private litigation alive alongside government antitrust cases challenging Google’s control of search distribution.

United States v. RealPage Proposed Final Judgment

| U.S. Department of Justice / Federal Register | Federal Register | January 21, 2026

This Federal Register notice describes a proposed final judgment involving RealPage-related rental pricing allegations. It is useful because it shows the practical remedy side of modern antitrust enforcement: regulators are not only filing lawsuits, but also trying to restrict software tools and data-sharing systems that may reduce rental-market competition.

FTC Says It Will Appeal Meta Antitrust Decision

| AP Staff | Associated Press | January 20, 2026

The Federal Trade Commission said it would appeal a ruling that rejected its effort to prove Meta held an illegal social-networking monopoly. The case is important because it shows the difficulty of defining markets in fast-changing technology sectors, especially when companies argue that platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and messaging apps all compete with each other.

Antitrust Fights Loom as Companies Seek to Protect Platforms

| Farella Braun + Martel | Farella Braun + Martel | January 12, 2026

This article predicts continuing antitrust activity in 2026 as platform companies defend ecosystems, distribution channels, and market positions. It is useful because it frames a major recent trend: many antitrust battles now involve platform gatekeeping rather than classic price fixing or old industrial trusts.

PepsiCo and Walmart Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Price Discrimination

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | December 16, 2025

Consumers sued PepsiCo and Walmart over allegations that Pepsi gave Walmart preferential pricing while raising wholesale prices for other retailers. The case reflects renewed interest in the Robinson-Patman Act, a New Deal-era antitrust law aimed at preventing large buyers from receiving unfair price advantages over smaller businesses.

Justice Department Requires RealPage to End Sharing of Competitively Sensitive Rental Data

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ | November 24, 2025

The DOJ announced a proposed settlement requiring RealPage to stop certain information-sharing practices tied to rental housing markets. The case shows that algorithmic pricing and data-sharing enforcement remains active, especially where regulators believe software can help competitors coordinate prices.

RealPage Agrees to Limit Data Collection to Settle DOJ Rental Price-Fixing Case

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | November 24, 2025

RealPage agreed to limits on its use of rental-pricing data to settle Justice Department allegations that its software helped landlords coordinate rents. The case is a major example of modern antitrust law being applied to algorithmic pricing, where software can allegedly replace direct collusion with shared data and automated recommendations.

The Government Failed to Break Up Meta. It’s Becoming a Pattern.

| Cat Zakrzewski | The Washington Post | November 20, 2025

This article argues that the government’s failure to break up Meta reflects a broader pattern in Big Tech antitrust: courts may be willing to recognize some competitive concerns but reluctant to order structural breakups. It is useful because it explains why recent antitrust can look active on paper but limited in its practical consequences.

Meta Prevails in Historic FTC Antitrust Case

| AP Staff | Associated Press | November 18, 2025

A federal judge ruled against the FTC in its attempt to force Meta to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The ruling shows that even aggressive antitrust theories can fail when courts accept a broader market definition or conclude that the target company faces enough competition from newer platforms.

Visa and Mastercard Reach Revised $38 Billion Swipe Fee Settlement

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | November 10, 2025

Visa and Mastercard reached a revised settlement with merchants over swipe fees, including changes to fee caps and card-acceptance rules. The long-running litigation is important because payment-network fees affect nearly every retail transaction and can shape costs for both merchants and consumers.

Agri Stats Settles Poultry Worker Wage-Fixing Lawsuit

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | October 13, 2025

Agri Stats also settled claims involving poultry worker wage data. This is important because modern antitrust enforcement increasingly treats labor-market competition as central, not secondary, especially when data systems may help employers suppress wages.

Meta Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Instagram Shopping Monopoly

| Mike Scarcella | Reuters | September 29, 2025

Meta faced a lawsuit alleging that it improperly built or protected its Instagram Shopping business by using anticompetitive conduct. The case is part of a broader wave of litigation against large technology platforms accused of using control over digital ecosystems to block smaller rivals.

Big Tech Remains Top Priority for DOJ and FTC in U.S. Antitrust Litigation

| Michelle Lowery, Chelsea Mounayer and Zachary Sproull | Global Competition Review | August 11, 2025

This article argues that Big Tech remains a leading focus for U.S. antitrust agencies and private plaintiffs. It is useful because recent enforcement is not only about government cases; private lawsuits and state actions continue to pressure dominant technology platforms.

Pepsi Accused of Price Discrimination in New Merchant Class Action

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | August 6, 2025

A merchant class action accused PepsiCo of violating antitrust law by allegedly giving Walmart better pricing and discount terms than smaller retailers. The lawsuit is part of a larger debate over whether antitrust law should protect small businesses from powerful buyers and suppliers.

LinkedIn Settles Antitrust Lawsuit and Agrees to Contracting Changes

| Mike Scarcella | Reuters | July 14, 2025

LinkedIn agreed to change certain contract terms after being accused of using agreements with business partners to restrain potential competitors. The case shows how platform companies can face antitrust scrutiny not only for mergers or prices, but also for contract provisions that may limit rival entry.

Apple Loses Bid to Dismiss U.S. Smartphone Monopoly Case

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 30, 2025

A federal judge allowed the Justice Department’s smartphone monopoly case against Apple to proceed. The ruling matters because it means Apple must continue defending claims that its control over the iPhone ecosystem blocks rivals, raises switching costs, and limits consumer choice.

Deere Must Face FTC Antitrust Lawsuit Over Repair Costs

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 10, 2025

A federal judge ruled that Deere must face the FTC’s lawsuit accusing the company of restricting access to repair tools and raising costs for farmers. The case is one of the strongest examples of right-to-repair being treated as an antitrust issue rather than only a consumer-protection or property-rights issue.

FTC Drops Case Against Pepsi Alleging Price Discrimination

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | May 22, 2025

The FTC dropped its Robinson-Patman Act case against PepsiCo, which had accused the company of giving Walmart preferential treatment. The dismissal shows how antitrust enforcement priorities can shift sharply with changes in agency leadership.

FTC Backs DOJ Proposal in Google Search Antitrust Case

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | May 9, 2025

The FTC backed Justice Department proposals intended to reduce Google’s search dominance, including measures involving search data and default search agreements. The article also shows how antitrust remedies in search can affect artificial intelligence companies that rely on data, distribution, and investment from major platforms.

Google Ad-Tech Monopoly Ruling Gives DOJ Major Antitrust Win

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | April 17, 2025

A federal judge found that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in parts of the online advertising technology market. The ruling matters because it attacks the structure of the digital advertising ecosystem itself, including tools used by publishers and ad exchanges, rather than focusing only on consumer-facing search.

Department of Justice Prevails in Landmark Antitrust Case Against Google

| Office of Public Affairs | U.S. Department of Justice | April 17, 2025

The Justice Department announced a major victory after a federal court found that Google violated antitrust law in open-web digital advertising markets. The official DOJ release is useful for documenting the government’s theory that Google’s conduct harmed publishers, competition, and the open internet.

US Drops Bid to Make Google Sell AI Investments in Search Antitrust Case

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | March 7, 2025

The Justice Department dropped a proposal that would have forced Google to sell certain AI investments, including its stake in Anthropic. The change shows how regulators are trying to balance competition concerns in search and AI against the risk of disrupting investment in emerging technology.

Republican Bill Seeks to Curtail FTC Merger-Busting Powers

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | January 15, 2025

A Republican proposal sought to shift merger-enforcement power away from the FTC and toward the Justice Department. The article is useful for understanding the political fight over antitrust enforcement itself, not just individual monopoly or merger cases.

FTC Sues Deere Over Equipment Repair Restrictions

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | January 15, 2025

The FTC sued Deere, alleging that the company unlawfully limited farmers’ ability to repair their own equipment or use independent repair providers. The lawsuit connects agricultural competition, repair monopolies, and the cost pressures faced by farmers.

U.S. Sues KKR for Allegedly Avoiding Antitrust Scrutiny

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | January 14, 2025

The Justice Department sued private equity firm KKR, alleging that it repeatedly failed to comply with premerger antitrust review requirements. The case is significant because it targets not only a specific merger, but also the integrity of the merger-review process itself.

FTC Finds Major Pharmacy Benefit Managers Inflated Drug Prices for $7.3 Billion Gain

| Ahmed Aboulenein and Amina Niasse | Reuters | January 14, 2025

The FTC reported that major pharmacy benefit managers marked up specialty generic drugs and generated billions in additional revenue. The article is relevant to antitrust current events because PBMs sit at the center of a concentrated prescription-drug supply chain, where regulators are examining whether middlemen use market power to raise costs.

FTC Revives Price Discrimination Law, Sues Alcohol Distributor

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | December 12, 2024

The FTC sued Southern Glazer’s, the largest U.S. alcohol distributor, accusing it of giving large chains better discounts than smaller retailers. The lawsuit revived the Robinson-Patman Act after decades of limited federal use and marked a major effort to address competition harms to independent businesses.

Kroger’s $25 Billion Deal for Albertsons Blocked by U.S. Courts

| Jody Godoy and Abigail Summerville | Reuters | December 10, 2024

Courts blocked Kroger’s proposed acquisition of Albertsons after the FTC and states argued the deal would reduce grocery competition and weaken worker bargaining power. The case became one of the most important recent examples of antitrust enforcement against supermarket consolidation.

U.S. Accuses Visa of Monopolizing Debit Card Swipes

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | September 24, 2024

The Justice Department sued Visa, accusing the company of suppressing competition in debit-card payment networks through high fees and payments to potential rivals. The case shows antitrust enforcement moving beyond Big Tech into financial infrastructure, where consumers and merchants may pay more because of hidden network power.

Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme

| Office of Public Affairs | U.S. Department of Justice | August 23, 2024

The Justice Department sued RealPage, alleging that its rental-pricing software enabled landlords to share sensitive information and coordinate rents. The case became a leading example of how antitrust law may apply to algorithms, housing markets, and data-driven price coordination.

Second U.S. Judge Blocks FTC Ban on Worker Noncompete Agreements

| Daniel Wiessner | Reuters | August 15, 2024

A second federal judge blocked the FTC’s nationwide ban on worker noncompete agreements, adding to uncertainty over the agency’s authority. The article is useful for showing the legal limits of administrative antitrust rulemaking, especially when worker mobility and competition policy collide with questions about agency power.

U.S. Judge Rejects Visa and Mastercard $30 Billion Swipe Fee Settlement

| Jonathan Stempel | Reuters | June 25, 2024

A federal judge rejected a proposed $30 billion settlement over Visa and Mastercard swipe fees, finding that the deal did not do enough for merchants. The ruling prolonged a decades-long antitrust fight over payment-card networks, merchant costs, and whether dominant financial platforms can set excessive transaction fees.

On Labs and Fabs: Mapping How Alliances, Acquisitions, and Antitrust Are Shaping the Frontier AI Industry

| Tomás Aguirre | arXiv | June 3, 2024

This paper maps relationships among AI labs, cloud providers, chip manufacturers, semiconductor firms, and major technology companies. It is useful because a major recent antitrust trend is concern that AI competition may be shaped less by ordinary product rivalry and more by vertical integration, cloud partnerships, chip access, and strategic alliances.

Justice Department Sues Apple, Alleging Smartphone Monopoly

| Michael Liedtke | Associated Press | March 21, 2024

The Justice Department sued Apple, alleging that the company illegally monopolized the smartphone market by restricting competition in payments, messaging, apps, and connected devices. The case is one of the central Big Tech antitrust lawsuits and raises questions about whether closed digital ecosystems protect consumers or lock them in.

U.S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective

| Laura Phillips Sawyer | Harvard Business School | 2019

This academic paper provides a broad historical overview of U.S. antitrust law and policy. It explains how antitrust developed through political movements, state-building, changing economic theories, and shifting enforcement priorities, making it useful for understanding both the original purpose of antitrust and the later debates over how it should be applied.

The Evolution of U.S. Merger Law

| Deborah Feinstein | Federal Trade Commission | January 29, 2013

This FTC speech gives a historical overview of how merger law changed after the aggressive enforcement of the 1950s and 1960s. It explains how the Chicago School and later enforcement practice pushed antitrust toward economic analysis, efficiency claims, and a narrower view of which mergers should be blocked.

Antitrust Laws Explained: Protecting Consumers and Ensuring Fair Competition

| Investopedia Staff | Investopedia | No date

This explainer summarizes the purpose of antitrust laws in plain language: protecting consumers, preventing unfair competition, stopping monopolistic practices, and reviewing mergers that may reduce competition. It is useful as a general overview for readers who need a simple bridge between the history of antitrust and its continuing role in markets today.

Sector-Specific Antitrust: Healthcare, Labor, Agriculture, Payments, Media, and Consumer Markets

Ticketmaster and Live Nation Hold Illegal Monopolies, Jury Finds

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | April 15, 2026

A New York jury found that Ticketmaster and Live Nation illegally monopolized parts of the U.S. live-events market. The ruling is one of the most visible recent antitrust developments because it connects monopoly power to a consumer issue that many people recognize immediately: high concert ticket prices and fees.

California and States Seek Fees for Blocking Kroger-Albertsons Merger

| Mike Scarcella | Reuters | April 1, 2026

California and other states sought more than $10 million in fees after helping block the Kroger-Albertsons grocery merger. The article shows the practical cost of antitrust enforcement and the growing importance of state-led litigation in stopping mergers that regulators believe would reduce competition.

Labor Department Proposes Rule to Boost Transparency in PBM Fees

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | January 29, 2026

The Labor Department proposed rules requiring pharmacy benefit managers to disclose more information about rebates, fees, and compensation arrangements. Although framed partly as a benefits-transparency rule, the article fits the antitrust theme because PBMs have faced growing scrutiny over market power, drug pricing, and opaque middleman practices.

Judge Rejects FTC Bid to Block Private Equity Medical Device Deal

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | November 10, 2025

A federal judge allowed private equity firm GTCR to proceed with its acquisition of Surmodics, rejecting the FTC’s attempt to block the medical-device transaction. The case shows both the FTC’s interest in private equity and healthcare consolidation and the continuing difficulty of winning merger challenges in court.

Justice Department Clears T-Mobile’s $4.4 Billion Acquisition of UScellular

| Jody Godoy | Reuters | July 10, 2025

The Justice Department cleared T-Mobile’s acquisition of UScellular, signaling a more permissive approach toward at least some large telecommunications deals. The article is useful because it shows antitrust policy in action through approval as well as opposition: regulators can decide that a merger will not substantially harm competition.

Dialysis Giants DaVita and Fresenius Sued by Employee Benefits Plan

| Mike Scarcella | Reuters | May 12, 2025

A union health benefits fund sued DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care, accusing the dialysis companies of conspiring to inflate treatment costs. The case is part of the larger healthcare antitrust story, where consolidation and alleged coordination may affect patients, workers, insurers, and union health plans.

FTC Order Bars Former Pioneer CEO From Exxon Board Seat

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | May 2, 2024

The FTC allowed Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer to proceed but barred Pioneer’s former CEO from joining Exxon’s board because of alleged attempts to coordinate oil production with competitors. The case shows how antitrust merger review can include concerns about collusion and energy prices, not only market concentration.

Post-Chicago, New Brandeisian, and Modern Antitrust Theory

The Impact of Modern Big Tech Antitrust on Digital Sovereignty

| Ethan Hine | Digital Society | 2026

This academic article examines three decades of U.S. Big Tech antitrust enforcement through different schools of antitrust thought, including Chicago, Post-Chicago, and New Brandeisian approaches. It is useful for recent-trends analysis because modern digital-platform enforcement is increasingly tied to questions of national power, data control, technological dependence, and democratic sovereignty.

How Big Tech Is Faring Against U.S. Antitrust Lawsuits

| Jody Godoy, Zaheer Kachwala and Juby Babu | Reuters | September 2, 2025

This overview tracks major antitrust cases against Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia. It is useful for showing how the post-Chicago revival has moved from theory into litigation, especially against dominant digital platforms accused of using ecosystems, data, defaults, and acquisitions to protect market power.

Illumina, Inc., and GRAIL, Inc., In the Matter of

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | 2021-2024

The FTC challenged Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL, arguing that the deal could harm competition in early cancer-detection testing by giving Illumina control over critical DNA sequencing inputs. The case is a modern post-Chicago example of vertical merger enforcement focused on input foreclosure, innovation, and future competition.

The Biden Competition Policy Paradigm Has Been Primarily Post-Chicago, Not Neo-Brandeisian

| Steven C. Salop | ProMarket | November 26, 2024

Salop argues that Biden-era competition policy was better understood as post-Chicago than purely Neo-Brandeisian. The article is useful because it frames recent enforcement as a continuation of economic critiques of Chicago School assumptions rather than only a return to older anti-bigness politics.

Illumina’s Board Approves Spinoff of Grail

| Reuters Staff | Reuters | June 3, 2024

Illumina approved the spinoff of Grail after years of antitrust scrutiny in the United States and Europe. The article is useful as a real-world example of modern vertical merger enforcement forcing a company to unwind a completed deal.

Steven C. Salop Biography

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | December 29, 2023

This DOJ biography summarizes Steven Salop’s work in antitrust economics, including exclusionary conduct, mergers, joint ventures, and tacit coordination. It is useful because Salop is one of the central figures associated with post-Chicago antitrust analysis.

The 2023 Merger Guidelines

| U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission | DOJ / FTC | December 18, 2023

The 2023 Merger Guidelines marked a major attempt to move federal merger policy away from the most permissive Chicago-era assumptions. They revived stronger structural presumptions, addressed labor markets and platform competition, and reflected the post-Chicago and New Brandeisian view that merger law should prevent harmful concentration before it becomes irreversible.

Antitrust Enforcement in the Crosshairs: Post-Chicago Economists vs. New Brandeisians

| Marshall Steinbaum | Institute for New Economic Thinking | October 6, 2023

This article explains the tension between Post-Chicago economists and New Brandeisian antimonopoly advocates over the Biden-era merger guidelines. It is useful because it shows that the challenge to Chicago School antitrust did not come from one camp, but from both technical economic criticism and a broader revival of anti-monopoly politics.

Market Power, Not Consumer Welfare: A Return to the Foundations of Merger Law

| Sanjukta Paul, Sandeep Vaheesan and Marshall Steinbaum | Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance | June 15, 2023

This article argues that the post-Chicago consumer-welfare framework moved merger law away from its statutory foundation. It is useful as a modern critique of the Reagan-era and Chicago-influenced approach, especially the idea that merger law should focus mainly on efficiency and price effects rather than market structure and power.

The Consumer Welfare Standard Is the Backbone of Antitrust Policy

| Fred Ashton | American Action Forum | October 26, 2022

This article defends the consumer-welfare standard against calls to replace it with broader political or structural goals. It is useful as a counterpoint to New Brandeisian critiques, showing how many post-Chicago and conservative antitrust analysts still see consumer welfare as the core safeguard against unpredictable enforcement.

Why the Consumer Welfare Standard Is the Backbone of Antitrust Policy

| Fred Ashton | American Action Forum | October 26, 2022

This article presents a defense of the consumer-welfare standard, arguing that it has guided antitrust enforcement and litigation for decades by focusing on measurable harms such as prices, output, quality, and innovation. It is useful paired with critiques of the standard because it shows the central modern debate over what antitrust law is for.

The Rise, Survival, and Potential Fall of the Reagan-Era Antitrust Consensus

| Brian R. Cheffins | ProMarket | March 13, 2022

This article explains how the Chicago School’s ideas became the foundation of the Reagan-era antitrust consensus. It is useful for understanding the “post-Chicago School” period because it traces how consumer welfare, efficiency, skepticism toward government intervention, and permissive merger policy became dominant after the 1970s.

What Economists Mean When They Say “Consumer Welfare”

| Steven C. Salop | ProMarket | February 16, 2022

This article explains confusion over the phrase “consumer welfare,” especially the difference between legal and economic meanings. It is useful for understanding post-Chicago antitrust because much of the modern debate turns on whether consumer welfare means low prices, total economic welfare, innovation, quality, market structure, or broader democratic concerns.

Biden Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

| The White House | White House | July 9, 2021

This executive order directed federal agencies to promote competition across the economy, including labor markets, healthcare, agriculture, transportation, banking, technology, and internet service. It is a key post-Chicago policy document because it treated competition as a government-wide concern rather than only a matter for narrow antitrust litigation.

NCAA v. Alston

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | June 21, 2021

Alston held that NCAA limits on certain education-related benefits for student-athletes violated antitrust law. The case is important because it applied ordinary antitrust scrutiny to a powerful labor-like market arrangement, helping connect antitrust to worker compensation and monopsony concerns.

Still on Trial? The Court’s Use of Economic Analysis in American Express

| Fumiko Hayashi | Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City | April 1, 2020

This article explains the economics behind the American Express decision and why some scholars worry that the ruling made platform antitrust cases harder to bring. It is useful because two-sided markets became one of the defining areas of post-Chicago antitrust analysis.

The Post-Chicago Antitrust Revolution

| Christopher S. Yoo | Journal of Law and Economics | 2020

This article examines the post-Chicago antitrust movement and its influence on law and economics. It is useful because it discusses theories such as raising rivals’ costs, network effects, strategic behavior, and information problems that challenged the simpler Chicago School assumption that markets usually self-correct.

Labor Antitrust’s Paradox

| Hiba Hafiz | University of Chicago Law Review | 2020

This article explores the tension between labor-market antitrust and the consumer-welfare framework. It is useful because post-Chicago antitrust increasingly asks whether market power harms workers, not just consumers, and whether wage suppression should be treated as a core competition problem.

Breaking Up Big Tech: Separating Winners From Losers

| Fiona M. Scott Morton | ProMarket | September 17, 2019

This article examines whether structural separation and breakup remedies are appropriate for dominant technology platforms. It is useful because post-Chicago antitrust debates increasingly returned to remedies that Chicago-influenced enforcement had often treated as too intrusive.

Antitrust, the Gig Economy, and Labor Market Power

| Ioana Marinescu and Herbert Hovenkamp | University of Pennsylvania Law Review | 2019

This article examines how antitrust law should address labor-market power, including monopsony and restrictions on worker mobility. It is part of the post-Chicago turn because it expands antitrust analysis beyond consumer prices to include wages, job mobility, and employer power over workers.

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook

| Dina Srinivasan | The Atlantic | January 2019

This article argues that Facebook’s dominance in social networking and digital advertising raised serious antitrust concerns that traditional doctrine had failed to address. It belongs in the post-Chicago debate because it helped show how zero-price services could still create market power, data control, and competitive harm.

The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate

| Lina Khan | ProMarket | April 16, 2018

This article explains the New Brandeis movement, which argues that antitrust should address concentrated economic power, not only consumer prices. It is central to the post-Chicago period because it helped revive older concerns about monopoly’s effects on workers, suppliers, democracy, innovation, and small businesses.

Hipster Antitrust: A Brief Fling or Something More?

| Jonathan B. Baker | Competition Policy International | April 2018

This article responds to the early debate over so-called “hipster antitrust,” a label critics used for broader anti-monopoly thinking. It is useful because it shows how mainstream post-Chicago economists reacted to New Brandeisian arguments, sometimes agreeing that enforcement had become too weak while resisting a full return to older structuralism.

Ohio v. American Express Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 2018

Ohio v. American Express applied antitrust analysis to a two-sided transaction platform linking merchants and cardholders. The case is important because it shows how post-Chicago and platform economics can both sharpen and complicate antitrust enforcement, especially when courts require plaintiffs to prove harm across multiple sides of a market.

Labor Market Concentration

| José Azar, Ioana Marinescu and Marshall Steinbaum | National Bureau of Economic Research | December 2017

This research paper helped revive attention to employer concentration and monopsony power in labor markets. It is important for post-Chicago antitrust because it provided empirical support for the idea that concentrated markets can harm workers even when consumers do not see immediate price increases.

America Has an Antitrust Problem

| Matt Stoller | The Atlantic | October 2017

This article argues that weak antitrust enforcement helped produce excessive corporate concentration in technology, airlines, beer, hospitals, and other sectors. It is useful as a popular account of the post-Chicago backlash, connecting monopoly power to inequality, political influence, and reduced economic opportunity.

Monopoly and Competition in Twenty-First Century Capitalism

| Joseph E. Stiglitz | Washington Center for Equitable Growth | May 11, 2017

This essay argues that market power became more important in explaining inequality, weak wage growth, and economic stagnation. It is useful for the post-Chicago antitrust period because it connects competition policy to the broader post-2008 debate over corporate concentration and political economy.

Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

| Lina M. Khan | Yale Law Journal | January 2017

This influential law review article argued that modern antitrust doctrine was poorly suited to platform companies such as Amazon because low consumer prices could coexist with dangerous market power. It became one of the most important texts in the post-Chicago and New Brandeisian revival of antitrust thinking.

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 2013

Actavis held that pharmaceutical “reverse payment” patent settlements could be challenged under antitrust law. The case is important in the post-Chicago period because it refused to let patent formalities automatically shield agreements that might delay generic competition and raise drug prices.

Chicago, Post-Chicago, and Neo-Chicago

| Daniel A. Crane | University of Michigan Law School | 2009

This article explains how antitrust thinking evolved after Chicago School dominance, including the rise of post-Chicago critiques and later attempts to refine Chicago-style economic analysis. It is useful because it separates “post-Chicago” from both older structuralism and newer anti-monopoly politics.

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 2007

Leegin ended the rule that minimum resale price maintenance was automatically illegal under federal antitrust law. The case is a major post-Chicago decision because it accepted the possibility that some vertical price restraints can have procompetitive effects and should be judged under the rule of reason.

FTC Chairman: 1982 Merger Guidelines “Fundamentally Changed” Merger Analysis

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | June 11, 2002

This FTC release explains how the 1982 Merger Guidelines changed the way U.S. agencies and courts thought about mergers and competition policy. It is useful for understanding the post-Chicago legal world because merger analysis increasingly became structured around market power, consumer effects, and economic modeling rather than older anti-bigness assumptions.

20th Anniversary of the 1982 Merger Guidelines

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | June 10, 2002

This DOJ event page looks back at the importance of the 1982 Merger Guidelines and their influence on antitrust doctrine. It is useful because the guidelines helped translate Chicago School and post-Chicago economic analysis into the everyday language of merger enforcement.

United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of Antitrust in the New Economy

| Nicholas Economides | arXiv | September 24, 2001

This paper analyzes the Microsoft case as a test of antitrust enforcement in network industries. It is useful for understanding how post-Chicago economics focused on switching costs, network effects, standards, and entry barriers rather than only short-term price changes.

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

| U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | Justia | June 28, 2001

The Microsoft appellate decision became the landmark technology antitrust case of the post-Chicago era. It dealt with platform power, exclusionary conduct, network effects, and how a dominant firm could protect an operating-system monopoly by restricting threats from browsers and middleware.

Econometric Analysis in FTC v. Staples

| Jonathan B. Baker | American University Washington College of Law | 1999

This article explains the economic evidence used in the Staples-Office Depot merger challenge. It is useful because the case became a model for post-Chicago merger enforcement based on empirical price effects, local competition, and real-world market data.

The Microsoft Antitrust Case: A Case Study for Network Industries

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | 1999

The Justice Department’s findings in the Microsoft case described how Microsoft allegedly maintained operating-system monopoly power through barriers to entry and exclusionary conduct. The case became a landmark post-Chicago antitrust matter because it dealt with network effects, platform control, and the danger that a dominant technology firm could block new competition.

State Oil Co. v. Khan

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1997

State Oil v. Khan overruled the old rule treating vertical maximum resale price fixing as automatically illegal. The decision shows the post-Chicago movement away from broad per se rules and toward the rule of reason, where courts ask whether a restraint actually harms competition.

FTC v. Staples, Inc.

| U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia | Justia | 1997

This case blocked the proposed merger of Staples and Office Depot after the FTC argued that the deal would raise prices in office-superstore markets. The decision is important because it showed that even in the post-Chicago era, careful price evidence and narrow market definition could still support strong merger enforcement.

Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1993

This Supreme Court case made predatory-pricing claims difficult to prove by requiring evidence of below-cost pricing and a dangerous probability of recoupment. It is a major post-Chicago decision because it reflects skepticism that firms often sacrifice profits today in order to monopolize markets tomorrow.

Recent Developments in Economics That Challenge Chicago School Views

| Jonathan B. Baker | Antitrust Law Journal | 1989

This article was an early statement of post-Chicago antitrust economics. It explains how newer economic models challenged the belief that exclusionary strategies, entry barriers, and vertical restraints were usually harmless or self-correcting.

Raising Rivals’ Costs

| Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Steven C. Salop | Federal Trade Commission | 1983

This classic paper helped define post-Chicago antitrust thinking by explaining how a dominant firm might harm competition by increasing competitors’ costs instead of simply lowering prices. The theory became important for analyzing exclusionary conduct, vertical restraints, and strategic behavior.

1982 Merger Guidelines

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | June 14, 1982

The 1982 Merger Guidelines were one of the clearest institutional markers of the post-Chicago era. They shifted federal merger policy toward a more economics-centered framework, emphasizing market definition, concentration measures, entry analysis, and whether a merger would create or enhance market power.

Antitrust and Labor Market Power

| Ioana Marinescu and Herbert Hovenkamp | Economics for Inclusive Prosperity | No date

This policy brief summarizes how employer concentration and monopsony power can reduce wages and worker mobility. It is useful because labor-market power became one of the most important post-Chicago challenges to narrow price-centered antitrust.

The Chicago School, the Post-Chicago School, and the New Brandeisian School of Antitrust

| Joshua D. Wright, Elyse Dorsey, Jonathan Klick and Jan M. Rybnicek | George Mason Law Review | No date

This law review article compares three major antitrust traditions: Chicago School, Post-Chicago economics, and New Brandeisian antimonopoly thought. It is useful for separating the post-Chicago period into two different reactions: technical economic critiques of Chicago assumptions and broader political critiques of concentrated private power.

Mid-Century Antitrust, 1950s-1970s, and the Chicago School Turn

Google’s Hidden Empire

| Aline Blankertz, Brianna Rock and Nicholas Shaxson | arXiv | November 4, 2025

This paper argues that Google’s power extends beyond conventional merger counts through thousands of acquisitions, investments, and supported companies. It is useful for recent-trends analysis because it suggests antitrust enforcement may be missing forms of vertical and conglomerate power that do not fit older merger-review frameworks.

Did the Supreme Court Fix “Brown Shoe”?

| Daniel A. Crane | ProMarket | May 12, 2023

This article revisits the 1962 Brown Shoe decision and explains why it remains central to debates over merger law. It shows how mid-century antitrust placed heavy weight on market structure, small businesses, and preventing concentration, while later courts and scholars criticized that approach as too suspicious of efficiency and scale.

The Consumer Welfare Standard and Antitrust Enforcement: Properly Understood

| Herbert Hovenkamp and Carl Shapiro | ProMarket | March 14, 2022

This article defends a more flexible version of the consumer-welfare standard, arguing that properly understood it can include quality, innovation, labor effects, and long-run competitive harm. It is useful because it represents a post-Chicago effort to preserve economic antitrust analysis while rejecting the narrowest price-only interpretation.

The Consumer Welfare Standard and Antitrust Enforcement

| Herbert Hovenkamp and Carl Shapiro | ProMarket | March 14, 2022

This article explains debates over the consumer-welfare standard, which became increasingly influential after the 1970s. It helps connect the mid-century antitrust period to the later shift away from broad anti-concentration enforcement and toward economic tests focused on prices, output, quality, and innovation.

The Chicago Obsession in the Interpretation of U.S. Antitrust History

| William E. Kovacic | University of Chicago Law Review | 2020

This scholarly article examines how much influence the Chicago School really had over antitrust doctrine and enforcement. It is useful for the post-Chicago period because it warns against treating Chicago ideas as the only explanation for the antitrust changes that followed the 1970s.

Antitrust Division Workload Statistics FY 1970-1979

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | June 25, 2015

This DOJ historical data page summarizes Antitrust Division enforcement activity throughout the 1970s, including criminal cases, merger matters, civil investigations, and consent decrees. It is useful for showing that the 1970s were not simply a period of antitrust decline, but a decade of transition in which enforcement continued while legal doctrine and economic theory began to change.

The Philadelphia National Bank Presumption

| Peter C. Carstensen | University of Wisconsin Law School | 2014

This article explains the lasting importance of the Philadelphia National Bank presumption, which grew out of the Supreme Court’s 1963 bank-merger decision. It is useful for understanding why the 1960s became the high-water mark of structural merger enforcement, where rising concentration could itself trigger a strong legal presumption against a deal.

Conglomerates, Conglomerate Mergers and the Federal Antitrust Laws

| John T. Miller Jr. | St. John’s Law Review | 2012

This law review article looks back at the conglomerate merger wave and the antitrust response that developed around it. It is useful for understanding why the 1960s produced cases like Procter & Gamble and why regulators worried that large diversified firms could use deep pockets, advertising, and cross-market power to weaken competition.

The AT&T Case: A Personal View

| Thomas E. Kauper | Competition Policy International | 2009

This retrospective essay discusses the AT&T case from the perspective of a former antitrust official. It is useful because it shows how the post-Chicago era inherited older structural cases while also moving toward more complex questions about networks, regulation, technology, and remedies.

A Re-Examination of the Conglomerate Merger Wave in the 1960s

| R. Glenn Hubbard and Darius Palia | National Bureau of Economic Research | April 1998

This economics paper examines the 1960s conglomerate merger wave, when many firms expanded by buying companies in unrelated industries. It gives useful background on why conglomerates became so common and why antitrust agencies, courts, and economists debated whether diversification created efficiencies or simply concentrated corporate power.

United States’ Memorandum on the 1969 IBM Case

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | October 5, 1995

This DOJ document summarizes the government’s 1969 antitrust case against IBM, which alleged that IBM unlawfully maintained monopoly power in general-purpose digital computers through exclusionary and predatory conduct. The IBM case is important because it shows how antitrust enforcement moved from railroads, oil, and consumer goods into the emerging computer industry.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1979

BMI v. CBS involved blanket music licenses and whether they should be treated as illegal price fixing. The Supreme Court refused to apply a simple per se rule, showing the late-1970s movement toward more nuanced economic analysis when a cooperative arrangement might also create a useful product or efficiency.

Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Justia | 1979

Berkey Photo challenged Kodak’s conduct in film, cameras, and photofinishing markets after Kodak introduced new products. The case is important because it addressed how antitrust law should treat product innovation by a dominant firm, a question that became increasingly important as antitrust moved into technology markets.

National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1978

This case rejected a professional association’s rule that barred competitive bidding by engineers. The Supreme Court held that competitors could not justify price restraints by arguing that competition itself was harmful, making the decision a strong late-1970s statement that professional markets were not exempt from antitrust principles.

Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1977

This 1977 Supreme Court decision overruled part of the earlier Schwinn rule and moved many vertical nonprice restraints from automatic illegality to the “rule of reason.” The case marks an important 1970s turning point, as antitrust doctrine began shifting away from strict mid-century rules and toward economic analysis of actual competitive effects.

United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1974

This bank-merger case limited the potential-competition doctrine by rejecting the government’s challenge to a proposed acquisition in Washington state banking. The decision shows the 1970s shift away from some of the more aggressive merger theories of the Warren Court era.

United States v. General Dynamics Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1974

General Dynamics signaled a change in merger doctrine by allowing a coal-industry acquisition after looking beyond market-share statistics to the practical condition of the acquired company’s reserves and future competitiveness. The case helped move antitrust law away from mechanical concentration tests and toward more fact-specific economic analysis.

Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1973

Otter Tail involved an electric utility that refused to sell or transmit power to municipalities that wanted to operate their own local systems. The Supreme Court found antitrust liability, making the case an important 1970s example of monopoly power being used to block public or municipal alternatives.

FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1972

This case concerned the FTC’s authority over unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices involving trading stamps. The Supreme Court recognized broad FTC power, making the decision important for understanding how consumer protection and competition policy overlapped in the early 1970s.

Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1969

Citizen Publishing involved a joint operating agreement between two newspapers in Tucson, Arizona. The Supreme Court found that the arrangement violated antitrust law, making the case important for understanding how competition concerns applied even to local newspapers and media markets before later statutory exemptions for some newspaper joint operating agreements.

Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1969

Fortner involved a tying claim connected to financing and prefabricated homes. The case reflected the late-1960s willingness to scrutinize tying arrangements closely, especially when a seller allegedly used economic power in one product or service to force purchases of another.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1969

Zenith involved patent licensing, foreign markets, and alleged restraints on trade. The case is useful for understanding how mid-century antitrust law applied to international business arrangements, patent pools, and licensing practices that could limit a company’s ability to compete abroad.

Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1968

This case involved franchisees challenging restrictive arrangements imposed by a muffler franchisor. The Supreme Court limited the ability of defendants to use the “in pari delicto” defense against private antitrust plaintiffs, strengthening private enforcement by allowing parties caught inside restrictive systems to sue over antitrust violations.

United States v. Sealy, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1967

Sealy involved a bedding trademark-licensing system in which licensees divided territories and agreed not to compete in one another’s areas. The Supreme Court treated the territorial restraints as unlawful market division among competitors, reflecting the era’s strict treatment of horizontal restraints.

FTC v. Procter & Gamble Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1967

The Supreme Court upheld the FTC’s challenge to Procter & Gamble’s acquisition of Clorox, even though the companies were not direct competitors in the ordinary horizontal-merger sense. The case is important because it shows how 1960s antitrust policy also targeted conglomerate mergers when a large firm’s resources or advertising power might discourage smaller competitors or new entrants.

United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1967

This 1967 case involved Schwinn’s restrictions on distributors and dealers, including territorial limits and controls over resale. The decision reflected an era when courts were highly suspicious of vertical restraints, especially when manufacturers limited where or how independent dealers could resell products.

FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1965

The Supreme Court upheld an FTC challenge to Consolidated Foods’ acquisition of Gentry, a dehydrated-onion and garlic company. The case is important because it used the idea of “reciprocity,” where a large diversified company could pressure suppliers or customers to favor its newly acquired business, showing mid-century concern about conglomerate power.

United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1964

This case involved El Paso Natural Gas’s acquisition of Pacific Northwest Pipeline, a company that had been a potential competitor in supplying California gas markets. The Supreme Court ordered divestiture, making the case an important example of the mid-century doctrine that mergers could be unlawful when they eliminated potential competition.

United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1963

This case involved sewing-machine companies and foreign patent arrangements that allegedly helped exclude Japanese competitors from the U.S. market. The Supreme Court treated the arrangement as an unlawful conspiracy, showing how antitrust law could reach patent-based strategies when they were used to restrain competition.

United States v. Philadelphia National Bank

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1963

This 1963 case created one of the most influential merger-law presumptions in American antitrust history. The Supreme Court held that a merger producing a firm with an undue share of a significantly concentrated market would be presumed illegal unless the companies could clearly rebut the government’s case.

United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1960

Parke Davis involved a drug company’s efforts to maintain resale prices through pressure on wholesalers and retailers. The Supreme Court found that the company went beyond lawful unilateral action, making the case an important 1960s example of strict antitrust treatment of resale-price maintenance.

Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1959

Klor’s involved a small appliance retailer that alleged major manufacturers and a department-store chain conspired to stop selling to it. The Supreme Court treated the boycott claim seriously even though the victim was only one local store, showing the mid-century commitment to protecting independent businesses from exclusionary group conduct.

United States v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

| U.S. District Court | Justia | 1958

This case blocked Bethlehem Steel’s proposed acquisition of Youngstown Sheet & Tube, one of the most prominent 1950s merger challenges. The decision reflected the postwar fear that already concentrated heavy industries could become even more dominated by a few giant firms if large mergers were allowed to proceed.

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1958

This Supreme Court case condemned tying arrangements used by Northern Pacific Railway, which required some land buyers or lessees to use the railroad for shipping. The decision is important because it expressed the mid-century rule that certain tying practices were so likely to restrain competition that they could be treated as unlawful without detailed market analysis.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1957

This case involved DuPont’s large stock interest in General Motors and raised concerns about whether ownership ties could distort competition in automotive finishes and fabrics. The Supreme Court required divestiture, making the case an important mid-century example of antitrust law being used to break corporate ownership links that could influence purchasing and market access.

United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1956

This 1956 “Cellophane case” became a major antitrust decision on market definition. The government argued that DuPont monopolized cellophane, but the Supreme Court accepted a broader market of flexible packaging materials, showing how defining the relevant market could determine whether a company looked like a monopoly or simply a strong competitor.

Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950

| EBSCO Research Starters | EBSCO | No date

This overview explains how the 1950 Celler-Kefauver Act became the first strong federal tool for preventing mergers and acquisitions that could lessen competition. It is useful for understanding the mid-century shift from breaking up monopolies after they formed to trying to stop concentrated market power before it became entrenched.

Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. FTC

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1941

Although decided before the 1950s, this case strongly influenced mid-century antitrust law on group boycotts. The Supreme Court condemned a fashion-industry boycott against retailers who sold copied designs, helping form the strict approach to collective refusals to deal that shaped later cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Breakup of “Ma Bell”: United States v. AT&T

| Federal Judicial Center | Federal Judicial Center | No date

This historical article explains the breakup of AT&T, one of the largest structural antitrust remedies in U.S. history. Although the case began in the 1970s, the 1982 settlement and 1984 divestiture became a defining post-Chicago example of antitrust enforcement reshaping a regulated network industry.

Supreme Court Rules Against a Procter & Gamble Merger

| EBSCO Research Starters | EBSCO | No date

This summary explains the 1967 Procter & Gamble-Clorox case in plain language, including the FTC’s concern that Procter’s entry into the bleach market through acquisition would strengthen Clorox’s dominance. It is a useful example of the mid-century fear that large diversified corporations could use financial strength and advertising power to reshape smaller product markets.

The Antitrust Case, U.S. v. IBM, Is Tried and Eventually Dropped

| Jeremy Norman | History of Information | No date

This historical timeline entry explains that the Justice Department filed its IBM monopolization case in 1969 and that the trial began in 1975. The case became one of the largest and longest antitrust battles of the era, illustrating both the ambition and the limits of government enforcement against a dominant technology company.

AT&T’s Successful Spinoffs

| Investopedia Staff | Investopedia | No date

This article explains the antitrust history of AT&T, including the 1974 lawsuit that eventually led to the breakup of the Bell System in the 1980s. It is relevant to the 1970s because the case began during that decade and became the most famous example of antitrust enforcement against a regulated communications monopoly.

Historical Foundations and Early Antitrust Efforts

On the Continuing Relevance of State Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S.

| Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | January 9, 2026

This article highlights the growing importance of state-level antitrust law, including California’s 2026 law targeting shared pricing algorithms that may restrain trade. It shows how recent competition policy is increasingly being shaped by state statutes and state AG enforcement, not only federal Sherman Act and Clayton Act cases.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)

| National Archives | National Archives | March 15, 2022

This National Archives article gives the historical foundation of federal antitrust law, explaining that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was approved on July 2, 1890, as the first federal law aimed at monopolistic business practices. It is useful for understanding why Congress acted against trusts during the Gilded Age, when large corporate combinations were seen as threats to markets, small businesses, farmers, and democratic power.

Interstate Commerce Act (1887)

| National Archives | National Archives | February 8, 2022

This National Archives article explains how railroad monopolies and discriminatory freight rates led Congress to pass the Interstate Commerce Act. The law created the Interstate Commerce Commission and marked one of the first major federal efforts to restrain corporate power before the Sherman Act.

Why Did the Gilded Age End?

| History.com Editors | HISTORY | January 18, 2022

This article shows how the excesses of the Gilded Age produced public backlash against monopolies and corporate abuses. It connects muckraking journalism, especially Ida Tarbell’s reporting on Standard Oil, to the political climate that made antitrust enforcement more forceful in the early twentieth century.

The Progressive Era and Antitrust

| History.com Editors | HISTORY | February 4, 2021

This article places early antitrust enforcement inside the broader Progressive Era reform movement. It explains how public anger over corruption, monopolies, unsafe labor conditions, and corporate political influence pushed Americans toward stronger regulation of business power.

How Gilded Age Corruption Led to the Progressive Era

| History.com Editors | HISTORY | February 4, 2021

This article places antitrust law inside the wider Progressive Era reform movement. It explains how corruption, corporate concentration, railroad power, unsafe workplaces, and public anger at monopolies helped produce reforms aimed at controlling corporate power, protecting consumers, and making government more responsive to ordinary people.

The Granger Laws and the Granger Movement

| Robert Longley | ThoughtCo | December 4, 2020

This article explains the farmer-led Granger movement of the late nineteenth century, which pushed states to regulate railroad and grain-elevator rates. These early state laws were a key precursor to federal antitrust and regulatory policy because they showed how farmers and small producers organized politically against concentrated transportation and storage monopolies.

How Robert Bork Fathered the New Gilded Age

| Sandeep Vaheesan | ProMarket | September 5, 2019

This article offers a critical view of Robert Bork’s influence after the publication of The Antitrust Paradox in 1978. It is useful for understanding why the late 1970s are often seen as a turning point away from New Deal and Warren Court antitrust values and toward a narrower consumer-welfare approach.

Ida Tarbell and the Standard Oil Exposé

| Elizabeth Nix | HISTORY | April 9, 2019

This article explains how Ida Tarbell’s investigative reporting helped turn public opinion against Standard Oil. Her work showed how journalism, public outrage, and political reform combined to support early antitrust enforcement.

History of the Antitrust Division

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Antitrust Division | December 13, 2018

This DOJ history explains that Sherman Act enforcement was originally handled by U.S. attorneys and the Attorney General before a dedicated antitrust role was created in 1903. It is useful for understanding how early enforcement moved from scattered prosecution to a more organized federal antitrust program under Theodore Roosevelt.

The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age

| Tim Wu | Columbia Business School | November 2018

This article discusses Tim Wu’s argument that antitrust law should return to its older anti-bigness and anti-monopoly roots. It is important for the post-Chicago period because Wu helped popularize the idea that antitrust should again confront concentrated private power as a threat to democracy and open markets.

Cheers to Competition: 120 Years of the Sherman Act

| U.S. Department of Justice | DOJ Archives | March 3, 2017

This Justice Department article explains the continuing purpose of the Sherman Act: deterring anticompetitive behavior so companies must compete by offering better products, services, and prices. It connects the original 1890 law to later enforcement actions, showing why the Sherman Act remained central from trustbusting to modern technology cases.

Records of the Interstate Commerce Commission

| National Archives | National Archives | August 15, 2016

This archival guide documents the records of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the first major federal regulatory agency created to oversee railroad rates and practices. It is useful for understanding how early anti-monopoly policy was built not only through courts but also through administrative regulation.

Reviving Antitrust: Why Our Economy Needs a Progressive Competition Policy

| Marshall Steinbaum, Eric Harris Bernstein and John Sturm | Roosevelt Institute | June 29, 2016

This report argues that lax antitrust enforcement contributed to inequality, weak wage growth, and concentrated corporate power. It is one of the clearest policy documents from the post-Chicago revival, calling for competition policy that addresses workers, small firms, democracy, and market structure.

Present at Antitrust’s Creation: Consumer Welfare in the Sherman Act’s State Statutory Forerunners

| Barak Y. Orbach | Yale Law Journal | February 15, 2016

This article examines state antitrust laws that came before the Sherman Act and argues that many were concerned with what is now called consumer welfare. It is useful because it connects the original anti-trust movement to debates over whether antitrust law was mainly about protecting consumers, preserving competition, limiting corporate power, or defending small producers.

The Supreme Court Upholds the Antitrust Act in Northern Securities

| Constitutional Law Reporter | Constitutional Law Reporter | February 9, 2016

This article gives a readable explanation of the Northern Securities decision and why it mattered to Progressive Era reform. It shows how the case linked railroad consolidation, holding-company structures, and federal power under the Sherman Act.

The Clayton and FTC Acts: 100 Years of Looking Ahead

| Terrell McSweeny | Federal Trade Commission | December 4, 2014

This centennial speech explains why the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act were major turning points in antitrust history. It emphasizes that the 1914 framework was designed to adapt to changing markets while preserving the basic goal of preventing concentrated economic power from undermining competition.

Theodore Roosevelt

| History.com Editors | HISTORY | November 13, 2009

This biography explains Theodore Roosevelt’s role in turning the Sherman Act from a weakly enforced statute into a major tool of federal power. Roosevelt’s suit against Northern Securities became a landmark moment in Progressive Era trustbusting and helped establish the idea that the federal government had a duty to police corporations that threatened fair competition.

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Trinko

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 2004

Trinko limited the ability of plaintiffs to turn regulatory access disputes into Sherman Act monopolization claims. The case is central to the post-Chicago period because it reflects judicial caution about forced sharing, essential-facilities theories, and antitrust intervention in heavily regulated industries.

The Beef Trust and the Rise of Antitrust Enforcement

| Marc Winerman | Antitrust Law Journal / FTC | 2003

This scholarly history discusses the early federal campaign against trusts, including the meatpacking industry and the growth of investigative government. It helps explain why antitrust enforcement became tied to fact-finding, economic investigation, and the creation of permanent federal competition institutions.

Concentration, Cooperation, Control and Competition

| Marc Winerman | Antitrust Law Journal / FTC | 2003

This detailed scholarly article traces the origins of the FTC and the antitrust movement from the Sherman Act through the Clayton and FTC Acts of 1914. It is especially useful for understanding how early antitrust law grew out of public fear that concentrated private economic power could threaten fair markets and democratic government.

United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1972

Topco involved a cooperative association of small and regional grocery chains that divided territories for private-label products. The Supreme Court treated the market division as a per se Sherman Act violation, showing that even during the early 1970s, courts still strongly condemned agreements among competitors to divide markets.

United States v. Container Corp. of America

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1969

This case involved exchanges of price information among competing corrugated-container manufacturers. The Supreme Court held that information-sharing could violate the Sherman Act when it had the effect of stabilizing prices in a concentrated industry, making the case important for later debates over data sharing and tacit coordination.

United States v. Von’s Grocery Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1966

In this 1966 grocery-merger case, the Supreme Court ordered divestiture after finding that a merger between Los Angeles grocery chains violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The case reflected the mid-century belief that antitrust law should stop consolidation trends early, before local markets became dominated by a few large chains.

United States v. Grinnell Corp.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1966

Grinnell was a major Sherman Act monopolization case involving central-station burglar and fire-alarm services. The Supreme Court’s opinion became famous for defining monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude competition, making the case a key 1960s statement of how courts understood illegal monopoly.

United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1964

Penn-Olin was an important joint-venture merger case involving the sodium chlorate market. The Supreme Court held that a joint venture between potential competitors could violate the Clayton Act if it reduced the likelihood that either parent company would enter the market independently.

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1962

Brown Shoe was one of the most important merger cases of the Warren Court era. The Supreme Court blocked a shoe-company merger under the amended Clayton Act, emphasizing that Congress wanted to preserve competition, protect local control, and stop trends toward concentration even when a merger might create some efficiencies.

United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1912

This case ordered the dissolution of Union Pacific’s controlling stake in Southern Pacific, treating the arrangement as an illegal combination restraining interstate railroad competition. It is useful because railroads were among the first and most important targets of American anti-monopoly law.

Standard Oil Company v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1911

This landmark Supreme Court decision ordered the breakup of Standard Oil and introduced the famous “rule of reason” approach to the Sherman Act. The case is central to antitrust history because it showed the federal government could dismantle a dominant industrial trust while also making courts decide which restraints were unreasonable.

United States v. American Tobacco Co.

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1911

This decision broke up the American Tobacco trust shortly after the Standard Oil ruling. The case showed that federal antitrust enforcement could be used against dominant combinations built through acquisitions, exclusionary tactics, and control over distribution.

Standard Oil Company v. United States (1911)

| Supreme Court Historical Society | Supreme Court Historical Society | No date

This article explains the Supreme Court decision that broke up Standard Oil and developed the “rule of reason” approach to antitrust law. It is one of the most important historical sources for understanding how courts interpreted the Sherman Act and how antitrust law moved from broad anti-monopoly language into legal tests about unreasonable restraints of trade.

Hale v. Henkel

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1906

This Supreme Court case arose from a federal grand jury investigation into the tobacco industry. It is important because it helped clarify the government’s power to investigate corporations in antitrust matters and rejected the idea that corporations had the same self-incrimination protections as individuals.

Swift & Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1905

This case upheld federal action against the “Beef Trust,” a combination of meatpacking companies accused of restraining interstate commerce. The decision mattered because it expanded the practical reach of federal antitrust law through the “stream of commerce” theory, allowing regulation of local acts that were part of a larger interstate business system.

Northern Securities Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1904

This Supreme Court decision upheld the government’s challenge to a railroad holding company that combined the interests of major competing rail lines. The ruling was one of the first great victories of federal antitrust enforcement and proved that corporate form could not always shield a monopoly-building arrangement.

Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1899

This case involved a price-fixing and market-allocation agreement among cast-iron pipe manufacturers. It became an important early precedent because it distinguished illegal naked restraints of trade from more limited restraints connected to legitimate business arrangements.

United States v. Joint Traffic Association

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1898

This Supreme Court decision reinforced the rule that railroad associations could not lawfully agree on freight rates in restraint of trade. The case helped move antitrust enforcement from a mostly symbolic statute toward a practical tool against cartel-like agreements among powerful transportation companies.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1897

This case was one of the first major Supreme Court decisions applying the Sherman Act to railroad rate agreements. The Court held that an agreement among competing railroads to set rates violated the law, helping establish that the Sherman Act could reach price-fixing arrangements among competitors.

Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sugar Trust Case

| Congressional Research Service / Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | No date

This legal history explains how the Sherman Act was tested in the early Sugar Trust case, United States v. E. C. Knight Co. The article is important because it shows how early Supreme Court interpretations limited antitrust enforcement by distinguishing manufacturing from interstate commerce.

Munn v. Illinois

| U.S. Supreme Court | Justia | 1877

This early Supreme Court case upheld Illinois regulation of grain warehouse rates and became one of the legal foundations for later regulation of railroads, utilities, and monopolistic businesses. The decision helped establish the idea that businesses “affected with a public interest” could be regulated when private power harmed the broader public.

Celler-Kefauver Act

| Encyclopaedia Britannica | Britannica | No date

The Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 strengthened the Clayton Act by closing loopholes that had allowed companies to avoid merger limits through asset acquisitions instead of stock purchases. This law set the stage for the aggressive merger enforcement of the 1950s and 1960s, when federal policy treated corporate concentration itself as a major threat to competition.

United States v. E. C. Knight Company

| Supreme Court Historical Society | Supreme Court Historical Society | No date

This article explains the 1895 Supreme Court decision that allowed the American Sugar Refining Company’s acquisitions to stand even though the company controlled most refined sugar production. The case showed the weakness of early Sherman Act enforcement and revealed how narrow readings of federal commerce power could protect industrial combinations from antitrust attack.

Theodore Roosevelt: The Northern Securities Case

| Theodore Roosevelt Center | Dickinson State University | No date

This article explains Roosevelt’s first major antitrust victory, the case against the Northern Securities Company. The case helped make Roosevelt famous as a “trustbuster” and showed that the federal government could challenge powerful railroad holding companies created to eliminate competition.

Bureau of Corporations

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | No date

This FTC history explains the creation of the Bureau of Corporations in the Department of Commerce and Labor, an important predecessor to the Federal Trade Commission. The Bureau investigated large corporations and helped develop the idea that government needed expert fact-finding capacity to understand and police concentrated business power.

The Antitrust Laws

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | No date

This official FTC guide explains the basic purpose of U.S. antitrust law: preserving free and fair competition. It identifies the three core federal statutes — the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act — and explains how they are meant to stop restraints of trade, monopolization, anticompetitive mergers, and unfair methods of competition.

Antitrust and Monopoly

| Yale Energy History | Yale University | No date

This historical essay uses Standard Oil as a central example of why antitrust law emerged. It explains how large trusts used horizontal and vertical integration to control markets, exclude rivals, negotiate favorable terms, and gain power over prices, showing why monopoly became not just an economic issue but a public and political crisis.

Broken Trust

| National Archives Foundation | National Archives Foundation | No date

This article traces the basic story of American trustbusting from the rise of giant industrial monopolies to the passage of federal antitrust laws. It highlights Standard Oil, Carnegie Steel, and railroad empires as examples of concentrated corporate power that helped create public demand for laws to restrain monopolies.

Clayton Act

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | No date

This FTC page explains the Clayton Act, one of the major 1914 antitrust laws. The Clayton Act strengthened earlier law by targeting specific practices such as certain tying arrangements, anticompetitive mergers, and interlocking directorates, helping fill gaps left by the Sherman Act.

Our History

| Federal Trade Commission | FTC | No date

This official FTC history explains the creation of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Trade Commission Act. The article is important because it shows that antitrust law was not only about punishing monopolies after the fact; it also created a permanent agency meant to protect consumers and promote competition.

Benjamin Harrison

| White House Historical Biography | The White House Archives | No date

This presidential biography notes that Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the first federal law attempting to regulate trusts. It places the law within the politics of the late nineteenth century, when industrial growth and corporate consolidation forced the federal government to take a larger role in economic regulation.

Monopolies and Anti-Trust Actions in the US

Trump Administration, Political Influence, and Pay-to-Play Concerns

Paramount Refused to Air an Ad Criticizing Its Merger With Warner Bros.

Paramount Skydance Merger With Warner Bros. Discovery Won’t Harm Competition, DOJ Says

DOJ Approves Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Deal

US Justice Department Clears Paramount’s Acquisition of Warner Bros.

US Justice Department Approves $111 Billion Merger of Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery

Justice Department Says Paramount’s Warner Deal Wouldn’t Harm Competition

DOJ Approves Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

U.S. Justice Department Clears Paramount’s Acquisition of Warner Bros.

Lawmakers Say Trump NFL Probe Aimed at Helping Fox Get a Better Deal

At Spotlight Forum, Democrats Sound Alarm on DOJ Antitrust Settlement Allowing Live Nation-Ticketmaster to Continue Abusing Monopoly

Healthcare Emerges at the Center of Trump 2.0 Antitrust Enforcement

Heard at the 2026 Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting

CLE Takeaways — Trump 2.0: Antitrust Enforcement Trends and Deal Planning Strategies for 2026

Federal Agencies Signal Return to More Traditional Merger Review Practices

Top Trump Antitrust Official Leaves Post Following Disputes Over Big Mergers

Live Nation’s Monopoly Trial Is Reportedly Fracturing Trump’s Justice Department

Live Nation Settlement Talks Are Dividing Trump’s DOJ

One Year Into Trump 2.0, Antitrust Agencies Continue to Evolve

Trump-CBS Lawsuit Settlement Was ‘Right Decision,’ Says Former Paramount Chair Shari Redstone

Trump’s Campaign of Retribution: At Least 470 Targets and Counting

Lawmakers Say Paramount Skydance ‘Stonewalling’ Probe Into Trump Merger Approval

Senators Sound Alarm After YouTube Settled Trump Lawsuit Amid DOJ Antitrust Case

YouTube to Pay $24.5 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Trump’s Account Suspension

Trump Administration Drops Defense of Ban on Employee Noncompete Agreements

Trump Administration Drops Defense of FTC Noncompete Ban

Durbin and Booker Lead Judiciary Democrats Letter to Attorney General Bondi on Politicization of Antitrust Enforcement

Trump FTC Takes Action Against Worker Noncompete Agreements

Letter to Google and YouTube Regarding Potential Trump Settlement

MAGA Antitrust Agenda Under Siege by Lobbyists Close to Trump

Judiciary Democrats Probe DOJ’s Settlement of HPE-Juniper Merger

US Clears Way for $8 Billion Paramount-Skydance Merger

Comment of Former DOJ Antitrust Professionals on HPE-Juniper Settlement

Following Paramount’s $16 Million Settlement With President Trump, Senators Urge FCC to Hold Full Vote

Trump’s Antitrust Enforcers ‘Get Out of the Way’ of Multibillion-Dollar Deals

Trump Settlement Triggers ‘Widespread Distress’ at CBS News

U.S. Justice Department Settles Antitrust Case for HPE’s $14 Billion Takeover of Juniper

Meet the New Boss, Not So Different From the Old Boss: Antitrust in the Trump Era

The US Government Is Coming for Google and Meta, But What Will Happen Next?

Zuckerberg Lobbies Trump to Avoid Meta Antitrust Trial

Meta Agrees to Pay $25 Million to Settle Lawsuit With President Trump

Trump Expected to Shift Course on Antitrust and Stop Google Breakup Push

Recent Enforcement Trends, Agency Policy, and State Attorneys General

Antitrust Case Filings

Stanley Woodward to Run DOJ Antitrust Division, MLex Reports

As State AGs Step Up Enforcement, Plan Early on Merger Processes

DOJ Antitrust Exits Feed Steady Hires by Private Firms

State Attorneys General Increase Antitrust and Consumer Protection Enforcement

FTC to Host Workshop on “Litigate the Fix” Merger Remedy Proposals

Key Trends in State Antitrust Enforcement

Antitrust Agency Insights: Developments at the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies, First Quarter 2026

Trends and Enforcement Priorities at the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting

Antitrust Agency Insights: First Quarter 2026

Jury Finds Ticketmaster and Live Nation Had Anticompetitive Monopoly Over Big Concert Venues

FTC and DOJ Extend Comment Period on Business Collaboration Guidance

Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Seek Public Comment on Guidance for Business Collaborations

U.S. Antitrust Enforcers to Revamp Guidelines on Rivals Collaborating

Global Antitrust Enforcement Outlook 2026

U.S. Court Blocks Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule

2026 Antitrust Year in Preview: Big Tech

Navigating the Evolving Global Antitrust Landscape

State AG Enforcement Action: Priorities for 2026

Antitrust & Competition Outlook for 2026

Five Must-Watch Antitrust Storylines for 2026

Criminal Enforcement Trends Charts

Big Tech, AI, Digital Platforms, Algorithms, and Online Markets

Justice Department Requires OhioHealth to Stop Using Anticompetitive Healthcare Contract Terms

YachtWorld Operator Defeats Antitrust Lawsuit Over Online Boat Listings

Amazon May Face FTC Ad-Tech Penalties

Corteva to Pay $85 Million to Settle Farmers’ Pesticide Price Lawsuit

Congress Takes Aim at NFL Antitrust Exemption Over Streaming Costs

Hospitals Again Ask FTC and DOJ for Exemption From Merger Filing Rules

AI, Algorithmic Pricing, and Information Exchanges

Zillow and Redfin Fail to End FTC Rental Competition Lawsuit

DOJ Antitrust Head Warns Dealmakers Not to Mislead on AI

U.S. Justice Department Settles Agri Stats Meat Pricing Case

US Justice Department Settles Agri Stats Meat Pricing Case

FTC Takes Action Against Rollins Noncompete Agreements

Antitrust on Aisle Five: How Well Do Divestiture Remedies Work?