|

HSR-update-2025-200x300

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

On January 10, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its usual annual announcement to increase the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act thresholds. The 2025 thresholds will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, which means February 10, 2025.

HSR requires the parties to submit certain information and documents and then wait for approval before closing a transaction. The FTC and DOJ then have 30 days to determine if they will allow the merger to proceed or seek much more detail through a “second request” for information. The parties may also ask for “Early Termination” to shorten the 30-day waiting period, although for nearly two years the agencies have suspended this option.

The HSR Act notification requirements apply to transactions that satisfy the specified “size of transaction” and “size of person” thresholds. These thresholds adjust annually to reflect changes in the U.S. gross national product.

Three thresholds determine the applicability of HSR filing requirements.

First, one of the parties to the transaction must be in commerce in the United States or otherwise affect U.S. commerce.

Second, the acquiring party must be acquiring securities, non-corporate interest, or assets of the target in excess of $126.4 million––the “size of transaction” threshold. Entities need not file notifications when the value of the voting securities and assets is below this threshold.

Third, if the transaction exceeds $126.4 million but does not exceed $505.8 million–the “size of the parties” threshold–– then at least one party involved in the transaction must have annual net sales or total assets of at least $252.9 million, and the other party must have annual net sales or total assets of at least $25.3 million.

Transactions valued at more than $505.8 million are reportable regardless of the size of the parties, unless an HSR Act exemption applies.

The FTC’s notice also implemented a new filing fee structure from the new legislation. The new structure will be in place starting with filings made on or after February 10, 2025. Below are the new fee thresholds:

2025 

Size of the Transaction                        Merger Fee 

$126.4 million – $179.4 million             $30,000

$179.4 million – $555.5 million           $105,000

$555.5 million – $1.111 billion               $265,000

$1.111 billion – $2.222 billion                    $425,000

$2.222 billion – $5.555 billion                   $850,000

$5.555 billion or more                                        $2,390,000

As a result of the new legislation, those fees will also adjust annually, based on changes to the consumer price index.

The FTC further published revised thresholds relating to Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits interlocking directorates in which one “person” serves simultaneously as an officer or director of competing corporations, subject to certain exceptions. Now, Section 8 of the Clayton Act applies when each of the competing corporations has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $51,380,000 and each corporation’s competitive sales are at least $5,138,000 again with certain exceptions.

Continue reading →

|

Noerr-Pennington-Merck-300x200

Author: Ruth Glaeser

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Merck is exempt from antitrust claims under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in a lawsuit accusing it of deceiving the government about the effectiveness of its mumps vaccine to prevent competition.

Background from the Third Circuit’s Opinion

Merck was the sole licensed manufacturer of mumps vaccines in the United States for over fifty-five years, until 2022.  The vaccine was FDA-approved and included an FDA-approved label that outlined its shelf life, minimum-potency requirements, and effectiveness. Merck had an ongoing duty to ensure that the drug label was accurate.

In the late 1990s, the FDA expressed concern that Merck’s mumps vaccine did not provide immunity near the end of its purported 24-month shelf life. At the FDA’s suggestion, Merck overfilled the vaccine doses to try to make the doses potent through the end of the shelf-life period.

But this did not resolve the issue, and Merck did not share that information with the FDA.  Merck feared that disclosing this information would lead the FDA to require a change in the vaccine’s label. And a label change was particularly problematic for Merck because it competed with GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), which sold a similar vaccine in Europe. Merck thought that GSK’s vaccine would soon enter the U.S. market and a label change on Merck’s vaccine would make it easier for GSK to demonstrate that its vaccine was not inferior to Merck’s.

So, to preserve its market dominance, Merck misrepresented the vaccine’s potency and effectiveness at the end of its shelf life. To support this, Merck ran a clinical trial and claimed that it could reduce the potency of the vaccine without impairing the existing drug-label claims about immunity.  But the appellees in this case said the study did not reliably capture information about the drug’s immune response in the human body. Nonetheless, the FDA continued to approve Merck’s mumps vaccine label and Merck continued to make unsupported claims about the self-life and immunity of its mumps vaccine on the drug label.

GSK eventually demonstrated that its vaccine was competitive with Merck’s. And the FDA approved GSK’s application to sell its vaccine in 2022.

The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine

The Noerr-Pennington doctrine provides limited exemption from antitrust liability for actions intended to influence governmental decision-making in all three branches of government. This doctrine protects the First Amendment right to petition the government, including the courts.

It is, however, subject to a caveat—the “sham exception.” For Noerr-Pennington to apply, the challenged action must be a legitimate government petition rather than conduct intended to interfere with a competitor. Generally, the court will look to see if the anticompetitive conduct arises from the process of the government petitioning rather than the outcome. If the anticompetitive conduct arises from the process, rather than the outcome, of petitioning the government—like baseless litigation bankrupting a competitor due to legal fees—then the sham exception is more likely to apply.  But if the anticompetitive conduct is merely the outcome or result of legitimate government petitioning, then the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects the conduct.

The Court’s Analysis

The Third Circuit engaged in this process v. outcome analysis. The crux of Appellees’ antitrust injury was that Merck’s actions delayed the launch of GSK’s competing vaccine in the United States for over a decade by maintaining deceptive statements on the vaccine label. They argued that it was the misleading statements on the label that prevented GSK from entering the market because GSK was unable to match Merck’s alleged effectiveness.

But the Court explained that the allegedly false or misleading claims on the drug label were the result of Merck’s successful petition to the FDA rather than part of the process. The Court said that Merck faced a dilemma when it was approached by the FDA:  Merck could either (1) reveal that its vaccine might be mislabeled, leading to potential relabeling by the FDA; or (2) persuade the FDA that overfilling the doses fixed the problem (despite not actually doing so) and the request that the label remain unchanged.  Merck did the latter, and the FDA did not order Merck to change the label or take further action against Merck after learning the truth.

Continue reading →

|

Airline-antitrust-scrutiny-225x300

Author: Sabri Siraj

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a district court ruling to permanently enjoin the Northeast Alliance (NEA) between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways. This case offers key insights into the relationship between joint ventures and antitrust and the standards of review for evaluating competitive harm.

Airline Case Summary

Defendants presented NEA as a collaborative effort between American Airlines and JetBlue to streamline services, enhance route options, and compete more effectively in the Northeast region of the U.S. Specifically, the arrangement allowed the two carriers to coordinate schedules, pool revenue, and integrate operations in select markets. The airlines argued that the NEA would create efficiencies that would benefit consumers through improved services and better connectivity. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several state attorneys general challenged the agreement, asserting that it undermined competition, raised ticket prices, and reduced consumer choice.

The district court’s findings supported the DOJ and the States, concluding that the NEA’s anticompetitive effects far outweighed any claimed benefits. The court held that the alliance reduced output in critical markets and failed to generate meaningful procompetitive benefits that could not be achieved through less restrictive means. On appeal, American Airlines argued that the NEA deserved lenient antitrust scrutiny because it is a joint venture. The First Circuit, however, rejected that defense, emphasizing that the legality of such arrangements hinge on their substance and actual effects rather than their label.

Antitrust Issues and Decision

This case serves as a critical examination of the standards applied to joint ventures under antitrust law. Joint ventures, when properly structured, can foster innovation, enhance efficiencies, and deliver consumer benefits by pooling resources and expertise. But these benefits do not exempt joint ventures from antitrust scrutiny. The First Circuit’s ruling focused on three key principles:

First, the court emphasized the importance of substance over form. It rejected American Airlines’ argument that the NEA’s classification as a joint venture warranted less rigorous analysis. As the court noted, “One could describe price fixing as a joint venture,” highlighting that the label itself does not insulate an arrangement from scrutiny. The court’s inquiry focused instead on the practical implications of the NEA, particularly its impact on competition and consumer welfare.

Second, the court applied the rule-of-reason framework to evaluate the NEA’s competitive effects. This standard requires a detailed analysis of the agreement’s purpose, its potential procompetitive justifications, and its actual anticompetitive effects. Here, the NEA failed to demonstrate sufficient procompetitive benefits to offset its negative impact on competition. The court agreed with the district court’s finding that the alliance reduced output and increased prices in key markets, with no evidence of justifying efficiencies.

Finally, the decision reinforced longstanding antitrust principles requiring genuine economic integration in joint ventures. The court found that the NEA lacked the necessary integration of resources and operations to qualify as a legitimate joint venture. Instead, it functioned as a mechanism to coordinate behavior between two major competitors, effectively reducing competition without delivering substantial consumer benefits.

The Broader Implications of the Ruling

The First Circuit’s decision has significant implications for businesses and legal practitioners navigating antitrust issues. For companies considering joint ventures or similar collaborations, the ruling serves as a reminder that such arrangements must be carefully structured to withstand legal scrutiny. A legitimate joint venture should integrate resources and create new or improved products or services that enhance market competition. Agreements that merely coordinate behavior between or among competitors without achieving these objectives are unlikely to survive antitrust challenges.

Additionally, the case underscores that businesses should  proactively address potential antitrust risks during the joint venture’s planning and formation. This includes consulting with antitrust counsel, conducting thorough market analyses, and ensuring that any restrictions are ancillary to the venture’s objectives and proportional to achieving its goals. Companies should also document the procompetitive benefits of their agreements, providing clear evidence to support their claims if challenged.

Insights for Practitioners

The NEA case highlights why antitrust attorneys tailor legal advice to the specific facts and context of each arrangement. Joint ventures remain a common strategic tool for businesses seeking to innovate or expand their market presence. But, as this case illustrates, not all joint ventures are created equal. To withstand antitrust scrutiny, an arrangement must demonstrate genuine economic integration and clear consumer benefits.

Continue reading →

|

Oligopoly-Competition-Antitrust-300x193

Author: Ruth Glaeser

Recent news highlights a growing focus on government antitrust enforcement cases against companies accused of monopolizing markets and abusing their power. But let’s consider another question: if a company lacks sufficient market power to qualify as a monopolist, but competes with only one or a handful of other companies, how does that affect consumer welfare?

American antitrust law seems to champion consumer choice untainted by anticompetitive practices. But it does not prohibit the market dynamic known as an oligopoly, which is a structure prevalent in numerous industries across the United States and the world. In an oligopoly, a small number of firms effectively control the quality, pricing, and supply of a particular market. This departure from perfect competition typically leads to some combination of higher prices and lower quality, and possibly less innovation and fewer consumer choices.

Consider the air-travel industry, where major players like Delta, American Airlines, United, and Southwest hold substantial influence over consumers. Similarly, when purchasing technology devices, most consumers find themselves choosing among a limited array of manufacturers, such as Apple, Samsung, and others. While no single entity monopolizes the market, collectively these firms exert significant control, raising concerns about the implications for consumer choice and pricing.

As the landscape of market power continues to evolve, understanding the dynamics of oligopolies becomes increasingly crucial for consumer welfare.

What is an Oligopoly?

An oligopoly is a market structure characterized by a small number of firms, usually fewer than five, that collectively account for a substantial share of the market. These firms are generally interdependent and the decisions of one firm often directly influence the behavior and profitability of the others. Their interdependence can lead to anticompetitive behaviors, including aggressive pricing to tacit collusion. These practices may harm  competition and consumers.

One of the largest threats to competition from oligopolistic behavior is conscious parallelism. Conscious parallelism occurs when firms in a competitive market make aligned decisions without direct communication or collusion. Instead, each firm observes the actions of its competitors, and reacts accordingly, often leading to similar pricing strategies, product offerings, or marketing tactics. Sometimes, there is one company, often the largest, that will start the merry-go-round, and smaller companies will follow the leader.  Importantly, conscious parallelism is not itself illegal under the antitrust laws, but its effects can mimic the anticompetitive results of monopolies.

There are several ways in which a market can become an oligopoly. The most common are high barriers to entering a market and the need for economies of scale. Many industries, such as the airline industry, require significant financial investment, which can deter new entrants. Relatedly, established firms often benefit from economies of scale, which allow them to produce at lower costs than new entrants, making it hard for smaller firms to compete on price. Sometimes companies may merge or acquire competitors to facilitate this, which reduces market competitors and increases a firm’s market share.

Moreover, it is common for government regulations to create or sustain oligopolies, such as in the utility industry, where governments may grant exclusive rights to certain firms to operate in specific regions, limiting competition, and controlling pricing. And government regulation itself tends to increase economies of scale, which tends to move markets from competitive toward oligopolistic. Indeed, if the federal government truly cared about increasing competition, it would take a long-hard look at excessive, unnecessary regulations that increase market-entry barriers.

Risk of Anticompetitive Behavior

An oligopoly presents a risk for several types of anticompetitive behavior:

  • High Potential for Price Fixing

Price fixing occurs when a small number of firms in the oligopoly agree to set prices at a certain level, rather than allowing competition to determine them. A notable example is the case of In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, which involved seven defendant drywall manufacturers, four of which were responsible for approximately 70% of the market share. Plaintiffs alleged that these drywall manufacturers engaged in collusion to raise prices by 35%, announcing the increase to customers well in advance. This move came at a time when the industry was facing a surplus of product alongside a decline in demand. While the case was settled before reaching trial, the court’s findings suggested that the price hike was free from illegal collusion among Defendants.

  • High Potential for Conscious Parallelism

Conscious Parallelism poses a significant challenge to competition. This phenomenon occurs when firms coordinate their behavior without any explicit communication or agreement, often leading to artificially inflated prices. A prime example is Holiday Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Phillip Morris Inc, where Phillip Morris, a dominant player in the cigarette market, announced a substantial price reduction on its premium products. Its three main competitors quickly followed suit, controlling approximately 95% of the market.

Continue reading →

|

Amazon-FTC-Lawsuit-Online-Shopping-300x169

Author: Sabri Siraj

The Federal Trade Commission has survived a motion to dismiss in a high-stakes lawsuit against Amazon, igniting critical discussions about competition in the online marketplace. As a dominant player in global e-commerce, Amazon’s practices have long affected both consumers and competitors. Will this case change those practices or otherwise have implications for online marketplaces?

Important Note

Bona Law is currently representing Zulily in a similar lawsuit against Amazon in federal district court. You can read the complaint here.

About the Case

The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in Washington State federal court, stems from allegations that Amazon engages in anticompetitive practices that inhibit competition and violate the Sherman Act, the FTC Act, and consumer protection laws. The FTC alleges Amazon pricing practices harm competition by limiting consumer choices, and that Amazon engages in coercive tactics that disadvantage third-party sellers, creates barriers for new entrants, overcharges sellers, and makes it more expensive for sellers to offer their products on other platforms. Numerous states have joined the FTC’s lawsuit.

Amazon denies the allegations and asserts that its practices benefit consumers and competition. The court dismissed some state law claims but has otherwise allowed the lawsuit to proceed, with trial scheduled for October 2026.

Will the Case Affect Amazon’s Competitors?

For Amazon’s existing competitors, the FTC’s actions could provide both opportunities and challenges. If the lawsuit successfully restricts Amazon’s anti-competitive practices, it may level the playing field for other marketplaces like Walmart, eBay, and Shopify. These companies have often struggled to compete with Amazon’s extensive resources, alleged anticompetitive conduct, and customer loyalty programs. A more dynamic marketplace could enable them to attract more sellers and consumers, driving innovation and diversity in e-commerce offerings.

Moreover, if Amazon’s pricing strategies are curtailed, consumers could benefit through lower prices and improved service from competitors. This could encourage a competitive environment where companies strive to enhance their offerings, benefiting consumers.

Continue reading →

|

Market-Allocation-Agreement-Per-Se-Antitrust-Violation-300x133

Author: Jarod Bona

Have you ever considered the idea that your business would be much more profitable if you didn’t have to compete so hard with that pesky competitor or group of competitors?

Unless you lack competition—which is great for profits, read Peter Thiel’s book—this notion has probably crossed your mind. And that’s okay—the government doesn’t indict and prosecute the antitrust laws for what is solely in your mind, at least not yet.

But, except in limited instances, you should definitely not divide markets or customers with your competitors. Indeed, you shouldn’t even discuss the idea with your competitors, or, really, anyone (many antitrust cases are made on inconveniently worded internal emails and texts).

The reason that you shouldn’t discuss it is that market-allocation agreements are one of the few types of conduct that the antitrust laws consider so bad, courts label them “per se antitrust violations.” The other per se antitrust offenses are price-fixing, bid-rigging, maybe tying, and sometimes group boycotts.

What is a Market-Allocation Agreement?

When competitors divide a market in which they can compete into sections in which one or more competitors decline to compete in favor of others, they have entered into a market-allocation agreement.

The antitrust problem with a market-allocation agreement is that a group of customers experience a reduction in the number of suppliers that serve them. The companies dividing the markets benefit, of course, because they have less competition for at least some of the market, which means that it is easier to raise prices or reduce quality.

It doesn’t matter, from an antitrust perspective, how the competitors divide the markets or even whether they both end up competing for that product or service after the agreement.

For an obvious example, ponder a small town with two large real-estate brokerage businesses—Northern Real Estate Brokers and Southern Real Estate Brokers. A river flows through the town, roughly dividing it into northern and southern regions. The Northern Real Estate Brokers mostly attract clients north of the river and the Southern Real Estate Brokers usually service clients south of the river. But the river is passable; there is a bridge and it isn’t that big of a river anyway. So sometimes agents of each brokerage will participate in transactions on the other side of the river from their normal client base.

Late one evening, in the middle of the bridge, the leaders of the two companies meet and agree that from that point on, each company would only represent sellers for properties on their side of the river.

This is a market-allocation agreement and the leaders could find themselves in antitrust litigation, or even jail (the Department of Justice will often prosecute per se antitrust violations as criminal law violations).

While the geographic boundary created an obvious method for the two companies to divide markets, they also could have agreed not to steal each other’s existing customers (market allocation based upon incumbency, which is common). So if a real estate agent from the northern brokerage firm won a customer, no agent from the southern brokerage firm would compete for that customer’s business in the future.

This customer allocation agreement is also a per se antitrust violation. To see how this type of antitrust offense can develop in a seemingly innocent way, read our article on the anatomy of a per se antitrust violation.

In this way, the antitrust laws actually encourage stealing customers.

Continue reading →

|

AI-Antitrust-Mergers-300x240

Author: Luis Blanquez

Two of the main pillars from the Biden Administration Antitrust Policy in 2023 have been an aggressive merger enforcement agenda and its crusade against Big Tech and vertical integration.

On the merger side, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have published new Merger Guidelines (see also here) and proposed new changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) notification requirements (see also here.) In addition, both antitrust agencies have challenged more mergers in 2022 and 2023 than ever before. In a letter from November 2023 responding to questions from Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis., FTC Chair Lina Khan stressed the fact that:

“a complete assessment of the FTC’s success in stopping harmful mergers reveals that of the 38 mergers challenged during my tenure as Chair, 19 were abandoned, another 14 were settled with divestitures, and two are pending a final outcome.”

This includes key acquisitions such as the Nvidia/Arm Ltd or Meta/Within, among many others. And the FTC is showing no signs of slowing down this aggressive approach. Another recent example of a merger challenge by the DOJ is the Live Nation/Ticketmaster’s complaint.

But despite the FTC’s Chair confidence and the recent new challenge by the DOJ, this hasn’t been an easy path for the antitrust enforcers. Courts in the US have pushed back several of the agencies’ extreme challenges and new theories, such as in the Microsoft/Activision, (see also here, here, and here.)

On the Big Tech front things do not look much better. Both agencies have filed major illegal monopolization cases, sometimes together with State AGs, against Apple (Smartphones), Google (Google Search and Google Ad Technology), Amazon (Online Retail), and Meta (Instagram/WhatsApp––see also here––, and Within acquisitions.)

In other words, if you work in Big Tech, forget about acquiring an AI startup, unless you want to go through a long and hostile review process. This is having a serious impact on the most disruptive and growing industry we’ve seen in years.

The “Magnificent Seven” Tech Companies

The ascendency of Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, Meta, Alphabet and Amazon, the so-called “Magnificent Seven” tech stocks––is indicative of “a fundamental shift”, primarily propelled by advancements in AI. Currently, the top seven tech stocks have not only accounted for about half of the gains in the entire S&P 500, but also contributed to over a quarter of the index’s total market capitalization. These companies are not merely riding the wave of current technologies but actively shaping the future of AI. They collectively gather most of the market cap in the industry.

But until we see a shift on the current enforcers’ antitrust policy against acquisitions involving Big Tech, it doesn’t matter how well these companies perform. Why? Because as a startup in the tech industry (and really in any industry), your main goal is to either try to eventually go public through an IPO––if you become big enough––, or rather look for one of the Big Tech companies to acquire you. But with the antitrust agencies’ current appetite to block such transactions, Venture Capital companies and investors in the AI industry are thinking twice before risking their money on a startup, unless they specifically know that company is going public. Otherwise, the risk that VCs and investors see to get the deal blocked by either the FTC or DOJ is just too high, regardless of the potential these startups might have. And let’s be honest, the number of companies that make it to that level is already extremely low.

First, this is clear evidence of how such an aggressive and disproportionate approach to acquisitions involving Big Tech is currently hindering innovation in the most relevant and disruptive industry we’ve seen in years. But this is a topic for another article.

Second, what I want to discuss in this article is how because of such an extreme approach from the Biden Administration, Big Tech are starting to develop new and creative strategies to get involved in the AI industry, without having to acquire any startups and face the antitrust agencies. At least not until now, because this has already raised some eyebrows at both the DOJ and FTC.

Microsoft/Inflection

The first of these deals involves Microsoft and Inflection.

Backed by Microsoft, Nvidia and billionaires Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates and Eric Schmidt; ex-DeepMind leader Mustafa Suleyman––now Google’s main AI lab, and Reid Hoffman, who co-founded LinkedIn, started Inflection in 2022, claiming to have the world’s best AI hardware setup.

Inflection thesis was based on AI systems that can engage in open-ended dialogue, answer questions and assist with a variety of tasks. Named Pi for “personal intelligence,” Inflection’s first release helped users talk through questions or problems over back-and-forth dialog it then remembers, seemingly getting to know its user over time. While it can give fact-based answers, it’s more personal and “human” than any other chatbot.

In March of this year, Microsoft announced the payment of $650 million to inflection. $620 million for non-exclusive licensing fees for the technology (meaning Inflection is free to license it elsewhere) and $30 million for Inflection to agree not to sue over Microsoft’s poaching, which includes co-founders Mustafa Suleyman and Karén Simonyan. Suleyman will run Microsoft’s newly formed consumer AI unit, called Microsoft AI–– a new division at Microsoft that will bring together their consumer AI efforts, as well as Copilot, Bing and Edge––, whereas Simonyan is joining the company as a chief scientist in the same new group. Inflection will host Inflection-2.5 on Microsoft Azure. It will be also pivoting away from building the personalized AI chatbot Pi to become an AI studio helping other companies work with large language model AI.

So here is where it gets interesting. Microsoft didn’t formally need to make an offer to acquire Inflection. In other words, technically Inflection remains an independent company. But the antitrust agencies seem to disagree and have started asking themselves the following questions.

First, if the key people, money and technology have all left the company to go to Microsoft, what’s really left in Inflection to still be considered as a competitor in the market?

Second, could this qualify as a change in control according to 16 C.F.R. §801.1(b)? What about a file-able acquisition of just “assets”––a term currently undefined by the HSR statute and regulations?

And third, does this move create a “reverse acqui-hire” transaction, a practice which is becoming very popular in the AI industry? The so-called “acqui-hires,” are transactions in which one company acquires another with the main purpose to absorb key talent. But what’s going on in the AI industry is not quite the same. Big Tech are acquiring key employees––such as Suleyman and Simonyan with their core teams in this case––, while licensing technology, leaving the targeted company still functioning independently––so no HSR filing requirement is apparently triggered. This is not the first time we’ve seen this scenario in the AI industry. Last month, Amazon poached Adept’s CEO and key employees, while getting a license to Adept’s AI systems and datasets.

But the antitrust enforcers have started to ask themselves whether Inflection and Adept are still real competitors in the AI market. The FTC has already sent subpoenas to both parties in the Microsoft/Inflection transaction, asking for information about a potential gun-jumping scenario: whether the $650 million deal may qualify as an informal acquisition requiring previous government approval. In the case of Amazon/Adept, the FTC has also decided to start an investigation and asked for more information.

OpenAI, Nvidia and Microsoft

The FTC and DOJ are finalizing an agreement to split duties to investigate potential antitrust violations of Microsoft, OpenAI, and Nvidia.

According to Politico, the DOJ will lead the Nvidia investigation, and its leading position in supplying the high-end semiconductors underpinning AI computing, while the FTC is set to probe whether Microsoft, and its partner OpenAI, have unfair advantages with the rapidly evolving technology, particularly around the technology used for large language models. At issue is the so-called AI stack, which includes high-performance semiconductors, massive cloud computing resources, data for training large language models, the software needed to integrate those components and consumer-facing applications like ChatGPT.

Continue reading →

|

algorithm-price-fixing-cases-antitrust-doj-ftc-300x169

Author: Luis Blanquez

We recently wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s blog post explaining how relying on a common algorithm to determine your pricing decisions might violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The FTC has Algorithmic Price-Fixing in its Antitrust Crosshairs

It was just a matter of time until the first cases would hit the courts. That’s why during the last couple of years, we’ve seen four main federal antitrust cases alleging that algorithmic pricing might violate the antitrust laws. In three of them, the antitrust agencies also filed Statements of Interest (SOI), outlining the agencies’ opinion about what the legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing should be.

Realpage, Inc. Software Antitrust Litigation

This multidistrict litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee involves unlawful price-fixing schemes against multifamily housing developers and managers, and student housing developers and managers, both organized by RealPage––a software algorithm company. RealPage developed software to collect property owners’ and managers’ data, used for pricing and inventory strategies, that later shared with its clients.

In January 2024, the Court: (i) denied the motion to dismiss the multifamily housing cases––the renters plausibly alleged an antitrust violation, but (ii) rejected claims alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy among landlords, which would have been per se illegal. The Court, however, concluded that those same landlords vertically conspired with RealPage. The Court also dismissed the student housing plaintiffs’ complaint.

In parallel, the DOJ opened an investigation and filed a SOI. Among other things, the DOJ highlighted:

  • The fact that today software algorithms process more information more rapidly than humans and can be employed to fix prices. The technical capabilities of software can enhance competitors’ ability to optimize cartel gains, monitor real-time deviations, and minimize incentives to cheat.
  • Section 1 prohibits competitors from fixing prices by knowingly sharing their competitive information with, and then relying on pricing decisions from, a common human pricing agent who competitors know analyzes information from multiple competitors. The same prohibition applies where the common pricing agent is a common software algorithm.
  • Factual allegations in both complaints point to evidence of an invitation to act in concert followed by acceptance—evidence that is sufficient to plead concerted action. Among other things, RealPage required each user to submit real-time pricing and supply data to it, and RealPage’s marketing materials allegedly “touted” its use of “non-public data from other RealPage clients,” enabling them to “raise rents in concert”; as well as the algorithms’ ability to “facilitate collaboration among operations” and “track your competition’s rent with precision.”
  • The complaints then allege that the landlords “gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it.” In particular, the landlords allegedly sent RealPage the non-public and competitively sensitive data (as RealPage proposed), and overwhelmingly priced their units in line with RealPage’s suggested prices (80-90%). Indeed, the complaints also contain ample allegations on how RealPage directly constrained the “deviations” from its suggested prices, including by enforcing and monitoring compliance with those prices, so the landlords effectively delegated aspects of their pricing decisions.
  • Relatedly, the multifamily plaintiffs allege that the landlords jointly delegated aspects of decision making on prices to RealPage. They allege that, by using RealPage’s pricing algorithms, each client defendant “agreed” to a common plan that involved “delegat[ing] their rental price and supply decisions to a common decision maker, RealPage.” Indeed, RealPage allegedly touted this feature—stating in a press release that it gives clients “the ability to ‘outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight,’” such that RealPage could “set prices” as though it “own[ed]” the clients’ properties “ourselves.’”
  • Jointly delegating any part of the decision-making process reflects concerted action. That the delegation is to a software algorithm, rather than a human, makes no difference to the legal analysis. Just as “surrender[ing] freedom of action. . . and agree[ing] to abide by the will of the association” can be enough for concerted action, so can be relying on a joint algorithm that generates prices based on shared competitively sensitive data.
  • The “per se” rule prohibiting price fixing applies to price fixing using algorithms. And the analysis is no different simply because a software algorithm is involved. The alleged scheme meets the legal criteria for “per se” unlawful price fixing. Although not every use of an algorithm to set price qualifies as a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, it is per se unlawful when, as alleged here, competitors knowingly combine their sensitive, nonpublic pricing and supply information in an algorithm that they rely upon in making pricing decisions, with the knowledge and expectation that other competitors will do the same.

The District of Columbia Attorney General has also filed a similar action in the Superior Court of D.C., alleging violations of the D.C. Antitrust Act.

Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

In this case from the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiffs allege that competing landlords violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, by unlawfully agreeing “to use Yardi’s pricing algorithms to artificially inflate” multifamily rental prices.

The Agencies also filed a SOI to explain the two legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing. First, a competitors’ agreement to use an algorithm software with knowledge that other competitors are doing the same thing constitutes evidence of a contract, combination or conspiracy that may violate Section 1. Second, the fact that defendants deviate from the pricing algorithm’s recommendations––for instance, by just setting initial starting prices or by starting with prices lower than the ones the algorithm recommends—is not enough to get them “off the hook” for illegal price fixing (even if no information is directly shared between the parties).

The Agencies SOI’s focus was on the second point: Defendants retaining pricing discretion. The Agencies stress in the SOI that it is “per se” illegal for competing landlords to jointly delegate key aspects of their pricing to a common algorithm, even if the landlords retain some authority to deviate from the algorithm’s recommendations. Although full adherence to a price-fixing scheme may render it more effective, the effectiveness of the scheme is not a requirement for “per se” illegality. Consistent with black letter conspiracy law, the violation is the agreement, and unsuccessful price-fixing agreements are also per se illegal.

Casino-Hotel Operators Cases

Two new algorithmic pricing antitrust cases are also ongoing against casino hotel operators in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

In Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesar’s Entertainment, Inc., a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, plaintiffs allege a conspiracy against eight Atlantic City casino-hotel operators, and the Cendyn Group LLC, which is a provider of the algorithmic software platform, called “Rainmaker,” used to fix, raise, and stabilize the prices of casino-hotel guest rooms in Atlantic City. Rainmaker allegedly gathers real-time pricing and occupancy data to generate “optimal” room rates for each participating casino hotel, which the software then recommends to each casino hotel.

Continue reading →

|

Robinson-Patman-Antitrust-New-Case-300x197

Author: Steven Cernak

Some of us have been asserting for years that Robinson Patman, the federal price-discrimination antitrust law, is merely “forgotten but not gone.”  That is, while there has been no FTC enforcement in decades, a few private lawsuits are filed every year and careful potential defendants still follow Robison Patman compliance programs. Recent statements suggesting a potential FTC revival seemed to jog the memories of practitioners that Robinson Patman remains on the books. Now, a lower court judgment by a dedicated group of plaintiffs and their lawyer provides more evidence that the law is anything but gone.

Clear Eyed Look at Robinson Patman

Very generally, Robinson Patman prohibits a seller of goods from offering lower prices or greater promotional allowances to one purchaser than to another competing purchaser. As we explain in other posts, there are many elements and defenses that make is difficult for a plaintiff to win. Court interpretations of those elements and defenses for the last few decades have only increased that difficulty. Still, one recent case shows that victory at the trial court level is possible.

In L.A. International Corp. v. Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., Defendants manufacture and distribute Clear Eyes eye drops. The suit alleged that Defendants sold Clear Eyes at a lower price and with greater promotional allowances to Costco (specifically, Costco Business Centers that resell to retailers) than to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are several distributors that also buy and resell such products to retailers like local convenience stores. Interestingly, some of these same plaintiffs, and their counsel, have been involved in a long-running series of Robinson Patman cases alleging that the manufacturer of 5-Hour Energy also discriminated in favor of Costco.

Here, the case was filed in August 2018 and went to trial in December 2023. A jury found that Defendants had violated Section 2(a) (and a California unfair competition law) by offering a lower net price to Costco than to most of the Plaintiffs. The jury allocated about $700,000 in actual damages among several of the Plaintiffs. In May 2024, the judge found that Defendants also had violated Section 2(d) by offering greater promotional allowances to Costco and issued an injunction requiring Defendants to offer identical prices and proportionally equal promotional allowances to Plaintiffs going forward.

At the same time as his injunction ruling, the judge rejected Defendants’ arguments about several problems with the jury instructions. Specifically, the judge refused to reconsider the instructions laying out the overall standard that Plaintiffs had to meet as well as how a potential “functional discount” claim was to be evaluated. Unlike the lower court and Ninth Circuit in the 5-Hour Energy case, this judge seemed to have no problem supporting the jury’s verdict that most of the Plaintiffs actually competed with the Costco Business Centers.

So, in many ways, this case is unremarkable. A plaintiff presented evidence to a jury that, following a judge’s instructions mostly copied from ABA Model Instructions, found a Robinson Patman violation and set damages. The judge then followed that verdict and found another violation and provided injunctive relief. Yet, such cases and certainly such plaintiff verdicts are rare today. So, what are the takeaways for other potential plaintiffs or defendants?

Takeaways

First, maybe even more than all antitrust litigation, Robinson Patman litigation is time-consuming and fact intensive. The case took over 5 years to get to trial and the possibility of appeals still exists. The Plaintiffs are located in different parts of California plus Texas and New York. Each Plaintiff had to show at the local level that it competed with a specific Costco Business Center and that such competition was harmed by Defendants’ practices. Given the various elements and defenses and courts’ interpretations of Robinson Patman, no short cuts were possible.

Second, as we explained in prior posts and elsewhere, few courts have seen such a case in the last thirty years. Going back a couple decades further, the courts that did face such cases attempted to interpret Robinson Patman consistently with the rest of the antitrust laws under the then-new Chicago-School focus on competition and consumer welfare. As a result, there are plenty of defendant-friendly Robinson-Patman rulings, opinions, and dicta available.

Continue reading →

|

FTC-Pricing-Algorithms-Antitrust-300x170

Author: Luis Blanquez

Are you delegating your pricing decisions to a common algorithm software platform? If so, you might violate the antitrust laws. It may not even matter whether you actually communicated with your competitors. All it might take is for the antitrust agencies—The Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission—to allege illegal collusion is the use by your company of an algorithm-software tool trained using competitively sensitive data, with knowledge that some of your competitors are doing the same thing. Even deviation from the algorithm’s recommended pricing might not save you from antitrust liability.

The FTC’s Blog Post: Price Fixing by Algorithm is Still Price Fixing

On March 1, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a blog post explaining how relying on a common algorithm to determine your pricing decisions might violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In the blog post, the FTC includes a previous Statement of Interest (“SOI”) filed in the Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc. case to explain the legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing. First, price fixing through an algorithm is still price fixing. Second: (1) you can’t use an algorithm to evade the law banning price-fixing agreements, and (2) an agreement to use shared pricing recommendations, lists, calculations, or algorithms can still be unlawful even where co-conspirators retain some pricing discretion or cheat on the agreement.

The blog concludes with two important remarks:

  • “Agreeing to use an algorithm is an agreement. In algorithmic collusion, a pricing algorithm combines competitor data and spits out the suggested “maximized” rent for a unit given local conditions. Such software can allow landlords to collude on pricing by using an algorithm—something the law doesn’t allow IRL. When you replace once-independent pricing decisions with a shared algorithm, expect trouble. Competitors using a shared human agent to fix prices? Illegal. Doing the same thing but with an agreed upon, shared algorithm? Still illegal. It’s also irrelevant that the algorithm maker isn’t a direct competitor if you and your competitors each agree to use their product knowing the others are doing the same in concert.
  • Price deviations don’t immunize conspirators. Some things in life might require perfection, but price-fixing arrangements aren’t one of them. Just because a software recommends rather than determines a price doesn’t mean it’s legal. Setting initial starting prices or recommending initial starting prices can be illegal, even if conspirators deviate from recommended prices. And even if some of the conspirators cheat by starting with lower prices than those the algorithm recommended, that doesn’t necessarily change things. Being bad at breaking the law isn’t a defense.”

This is a bold statement from the FTC. Algorithmic collusion is not only on the agency’s radar now, but it is also one of its priorities.

Final Conclusions

Algorithm collusion is on the crosshairs of the FTC and DOJ, so expect more cases soon. And not only in the real-estate industry, as highlighted from existing investigations on the online retailing and meat processing industries. Indeed, it is becoming common practice for more industries and businesses to implement and rely on algorithms to set their pricing strategies.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
Dallas
100 Crescent Ct #700 - 3425
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 469-296-7716
Detroit
28175 Haggerty Rd
Novi, MI 48377
Phone: 248-994-2221
Minneapolis
331 2nd Avenue S. #420
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: 612-284-5001
New York
16 Madison Ave 9th Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 212-634-6861
San Diego
4275 Executive Square
UNIT 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: 858-964-4589

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Bona Law PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design