The Antitrust Attorney Blog

The Paramount–Warner Bros. Deal: What It Signals for Antitrust Merger Review in Consolidating Industries

March 7, 2026 | Bona Law PC

In February 2026, Paramount Global signed a $110 billion agreement to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, setting the stage for one of the largest media combinations in recent memory. The transaction follows a competitive process that included a proposal from Netflix late last year to merge with Warner Bros. Discovery. Netflix ultimately withdrew its bid, citing financial considerations.

While much of the public conversation has centered on personalities and politics, the more meaningful takeaway for businesses lies elsewhere. This transaction offers a clear window into how regulators, both state and federal, are approaching major mergers in industries that are consolidating after years of rapid growth.

For companies contemplating transformative deals in their own sectors, the Paramount–Warner transaction signals an important shift in merger review: agencies are looking beyond simple market share metrics and focusing more closely on how consolidation reshapes long-term competitive dynamics.

Transaction Background

Under the reported agreement, Paramount would acquire Warner Bros. Discovery in a transaction valued at approximately $110 billion, including assumed debt. The combined company would control a substantial portfolio of film studios, premium cable brands, broadcast networks, and direct-to-consumer platforms.

The deal emerges at a time when the media industry is recalibrating. Subscriber growth has slowed, content production costs remain high, and companies are under pressure to improve profitability. In December, Netflix explored strategic transactions involving studio and streaming assets, underscoring the broader industry push toward scale and operational efficiency.

If completed, the merger would reduce the number of diversified, large-scale competitors operating across film production, content licensing, advertising, and subscription services. As a result, the transaction is likely to receive scrutiny from U.S. federal and state and international enforcers.

The Legal Framework Governing the Review

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits acquisitions whose effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” The inquiry is forward-looking and predictive. Regulators assess whether a transaction is likely to reduce output, raise prices, diminish innovation, or otherwise weaken competitive rivalry.

In a conventional horizontal merger analysis, agencies examine relevant product and geographic markets, the degree of overlap between the merging firms, and changes in market concentration. Structural indicators often provide the starting point for the analysis.

Modern merger review, however, does not end there. Particularly in capital-intensive industries with relatively few major competitors, agencies increasingly evaluate how consolidation affects incentives and industry structure over time. That broader structural focus is likely to shape review of the Paramount–Warner transaction.

State antitrust enforcers have been increasingly active in reviewing mergers that affect the citizens and consumers of their states. For example, multiple state attorneys-general challenged the Kroger-Albertsons merger. Here, the California Attorney General, at least, has signaled that he plans to investigate the merger.

The Key Signal: Structural Scrutiny in Consolidating Industries

The most instructive aspect of this deal is not simply that two competitors are combining. Rather, it is how enforcement agencies are likely to assess consolidation in a mature, high-fixed-cost industry.

Media production and distribution share structural features common to many other sectors: significant upfront investment, repeated interaction among a limited number of firms, and publicly observable pricing and strategic behavior. When markets exhibit these characteristics, regulators may evaluate not only whether the merged firm could raise prices unilaterally, but also whether reducing the number of independent competitors makes coordinated outcomes more likely.

This coordinated-effects lens focuses on market structure. Agencies may ask whether having fewer major decision-makers increases the risk of parallel pricing behavior, output discipline, or softened rivalry over time—even in the absence of explicit agreement.

That analytical approach has implications far beyond media. Healthcare systems, aerospace and defense contractors, energy infrastructure providers, and industrial manufacturers all operate in industries with high fixed costs and limited numbers of national competitors. In those sectors, consolidation may attract scrutiny not solely because of market share thresholds, but because of how it alters competitive incentives across the industry.

Continue reading →

Homebuilders in the Crosshairs: Preparing for Possible DOJ Antitrust Scrutiny

March 7, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Ruth E. Glaeser

Federal officials are reportedly considering an antitrust review of major U.S. homebuilders, particularly around how competitors share information through groups like the Leading Builders of America. The Department of Justice has not yet confirmed a formal investigation, but the discussion highlights risks that extend well beyond the largest national builders.

The size and visibility of large builders make them more likely to attract regulatory attention, particularly when housing affordability has become a major political issue. Policymakers are under pressure to examine whether industry practices, or market structure more broadly, are contributing to supply constraints that make housing less affordable.

But for developers of all sizes, this is a reminder that ordinary industry practices can end up under a microscope. Even conduct that seems routine and well-intentioned can become the focus of a costly and disruptive investigation.

The Issue of Trade Associations

At the center of the concern is information sharing among competitors. Trade associations, like Leading Builders of America, serve legitimate and important purposes. They serve as industry advocates, promote best practices, and provide a forum for discussing common challenges among builders. But regulators have long viewed trade associations as environments where competitors may be tempted to share sensitive information.

United States antitrust law does not prohibit companies from participating in trade associations or gathering market intelligence. What it does require is that each company make its own independent decisions about pricing, production, and strategy and not all information sharing is inherently anticompetitive.

Indeed, the DOJ and FTC have long provided guidance on competitor information sharing to help companies understand how antitrust laws apply to things like collaborations, benchmarking, and exchanging data. For many years, the Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors, issued jointly by the agencies, offered a framework for assessing when information‑sharing and other activities among competitors might raise antitrust concerns. Although the original 2000 Collaboration Guidelines were withdrawn in December 2024, the agencies have recently requested public comment to develop updated guidance that would cover collaborations and information exchanges for today’s economic and technological landscape.

In practice, problems can arise when communications, including informal ones, suggest that competitors are aligning their behavior. Regulators are especially focused on exchanges involving non-public information about future business plans, because that kind of information is more likely to influence how competitors behave and ultimately affect prices, supply, or quality. Emails, text messages, and meeting notes discussing pricing, future plans, or competitors’ actions can appear more nefarious when viewed in hindsight by regulators.

It’s Not Just the Government

Government investigations are only part of the risk. Antitrust scrutiny often leads to follow-on lawsuits by private parties like homebuyers and investors—an antitrust blizzard of sorts—who have an easier time prosecuting their claims by copying the arguments and evidence from the government’s case. Even when defendant companies believe they’ve done nothing wrong, responding to investigations and defending lawsuits can be expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive.

Economic and Market Forces Can Complicate the Picture

Homebuilders also face challenges unique to the industry. Builders operating in the same markets often respond to the same economic pressures at the same time. Interest rates, material costs, labor availability, and local regulations all affect how many homes are built and how they are priced. When mortgage rates rise, demand slows. Builders may respond by adjusting pricing, slowing production, or delaying projects. Similarly, when lumber prices increase or labor becomes scarce, builders may raise prices or build fewer homes. Local regulation can have the same effect—zoning restrictions, permitting delays, and approval timelines often affect every builder in a given area. Supply chain disruptions can create similar patterns. And if materials are delayed or unavailable, multiple builders may pause or reschedule construction.

Continue reading →

Ninth Circuit Affirms Robinson-Patman Victory — But Is There Now a Circuit Split?

March 5, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Cansu Gunel

In May 2024, this blog discussed a rare plaintiff victory in a Robinson-Patman case. In February 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that victory in L.A. International Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. In doing so, the court confirmed our key takeaways from 2024 — a successful Robinson-Patman case, while possible, will be expensive and lengthy and will only get easier if more plaintiff-friendly opinions, like this one from the Ninth Circuit, are written. In crafting that opinion, however, the court might have created a split with at least the Second Circuit that the Supreme Court could find interesting.

Robinson-Patman and Case History

This blog has recounted the elements and history of Robinson-Patman in prior posts. In summary, RP is a Depression-era amendment of the Clayton Act that makes certain manufacturer discounts to some (usually large) resellers but not to other (usually small) resellers illegal if there is the requisite harm to competition.

For decades, the FTC and private plaintiffs brought numerous cases that generated many opinions, including from the Supreme Court. As antitrust law evolved to focus nearly exclusively on benefits to consumers, especially lower prices, the FTC stopped bringing cases and private cases dwindled. The few cases brought often resulted in plaintiff losses and defendant-friendly precedent. Still, the non-zero risk of RP enforcement meant that most manufacturers and retailers paid at least some attention to RP. Because the FTC has become more interested in RP enforcement, including bringing two cases recently, RP clearly is not “gone” and now might not even be “forgotten.”

L.A. International Corp. v. Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., is one of those rare private RP suits and even rarer plaintiff wins. As we detailed in 2024, 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.

After years of litigation, the case was tried to a jury, which found for Plaintiffs and allocated around $700,000 in damages among the several distributors. The lower court rejected various objections to its jury instructions by Defendants, which formed the basis of Ninth Circuit appeal.

Competitive Injury Standards: A Circuit Split

The Ninth Circuit’s “Geographic Proximity” Approach

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, applying what it characterized as the traditional “chain-store paradigm,” where wholesalers and large retailers like Costco both “carried and resold an inventory of [a product] to all comers.” The court found that “to establish that two customers are in general competition, it is sufficient to prove that:

one customer has outlets in geographical proximity to those of the other;
the two customers purchased goods of the same grade and quality from the seller within approximately the same period of time; and
the two customers are operating on a particular functional level such as wholesaling or retailing.”

Critically, the Ninth Circuit rejected any requirement that competitive injury be “substantial,” holding that “Congress strung together the clauses in Section 2(a) with the disjunctive ‘or,’ which requires that we treat the clauses separately.” Section 2(a), in relevant part, states:

. . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition . . .

Thus, in rejecting the Defendants’ claim that the instructions should have included the “substantial” requirement because “the word ‘substantially’ … modifies the phrase ‘to injure, destroy, or prevent competition,” the court concluded that “[w]holesalers needed to show only that the effects of Prestige’s discriminatory actions ‘may be … to injure, destroy, or prevent competition’” and that “the district court did not err when it instructed the jury that the plaintiff was required to establish ‘a reasonable possibility of harm to competition.’”

The Ninth Circuit rejected Defendants’ argument for three reasons:

the ABA Model Jury Instructions only requires plaintiffs to show “a reasonable possibility of harm to competition;”
standard canons of construction would not have “substantially” in the first element of the list modify the third element; and
Ninth Circuit precedent never addressed the issue explicitly but did describe the element as “a reasonable possibility that a price differential may harm competition.”

The Ninth Circuit buttressed this finding with a reference to the Supreme Court’s most recent RP opinion, Volvo v. Reeder-Simco, noting that the Court “omitted the word ‘substantially’ when recounting the elements for secondary-line injury, requiring that a plaintiff need only show that ‘the effect of [the price] discrimination may be to injure, destroy, or prevent competition.’”

Importantly, and consistent with its rejection of any “substantial” harm requirement, the Ninth Circuit also clarified that the Morton Salt inference—which permits courts to presume competitive injury from substantial price differences sustained over time—operates as an affirmative presumption once such a sustained price disparity is shown. As the court explained, this presumption generally suffices to establish a reasonable possibility of injury to competition without requiring proof of substantiality or significant direct lost sales. This approach aligns with the foundation laid by the Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. which held that a factfinder may infer injury to competition from a sustained, substantial price differential because such disparities can impair the competitive opportunities of individual merchants and thereby create a “reasonable possibility” that competition itself may be harmed.

The Second Circuit’s “Substantial Harm” Requirement

This Ninth Circuit language seems inconsistent with the Second Circuit’s opinion in 2015’s Cash & Henderson’s Drugs, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson. There, the Second Circuit affirmed a summary judgment for Defendants because Plaintiffs’ showing of a loss of approximately .25% of customers to the favored purchasers was de minimis, thus inadequate to show the requisite harm to competition. In doing so, the court found that plaintiffs “failed to raise a question of material fact as to whether they suffered competitive injury” because they “could not generate evidence tending to show that they lost more than a de minimis number of customers to the favored purchasers, indicating that competition was not substantially harmed or threatened by the price difference in question.” [emphasis added]

Continue reading →

Antitrust Lawyers: AI’s Wartime Consiglieres

February 17, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Pat Pascarella

AI will weaponize antitrust. AI markets have high fixed costs, winner-take-all dynamics, platform leverage, bundling power, and data lock-in. These dynamics predict concentration. And market concentration is an accelerant for antitrust litigation—both private and government. We saw it with IBM, Microsoft, and the telecom wars.

Private actions will move faster than government enforcers—not because they are necessarily stronger on the merits, but because they are less constrained by politics and bandwidth. A well-timed complaint can slow a rival’s rollout, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and create settlement leverage. When markets tip quickly, the losers litigate.

Continue reading →

Key Development in the Nonstatutory Labor Exemption to the Antitrust Law

February 13, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Cernak

U.S. antitrust laws make exceptions for certain actions by employees and employers in the collective bargaining context. The limits of those exemptions are not perfectly clear. Earlier this month, a district court seemed to clarify and expand the so-called nonstatutory exemption for activities by employers.

Labor Exemption Basics

Between 1890 and 1914, courts generally viewed as illegal under the Sherman Act concerted activities by employees to obtain union recognition. To change that situation, beginning with the Clayton Act in 1914, Congress created what became known as the “statutory labor exemption,” which states in part:

Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor … organizations, … or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof

Later, the Supreme Court developed a corresponding “nonstatutory labor exemption” to allow employers, within certain limits, to reach agreement among themselves as they jointly bargained with the unionized employees. Generally, courts have restricted the nonstatutory exemption to agreements 1) related to a mandatory subject of bargaining such as wages, hours, and working conditions; 2) not having a potential for restraining competition in the business market in which the employers compete; and 3) that arise in the collective bargaining context and, often, when the employers have explicitly created a multiemployer bargaining unit.

For example, the Ninth Circuit in California v. Safeway in 2011found an anticompetitive agreement among four grocery stores who agreed to share profits during a union strike against any one of them. Because only three of the stores created a multiemployer bargaining unit while the union contract with the fourth did not expire for several months, the court was concerned that the profit-sharing agreement was “not anchored in the collective bargaining process.” Also, the court found the agreement did not concern a core mandatory subject of bargaining and could affect the business, rather than the labor, markets in which the companies competed.

Morgan v. The Kroger Co.

On February 6, 2026, the district court in Colorado granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in Morgan v. The Kroger Co. Grocery stores owned by Kroger and Albertsons, respectively, were separately bargaining with the same union over agreements that ended at the same time. The two employers discussed but never reached a mutual strike assistance agreement. Albertsons briefly extended its agreement, Kroger did not, the union struck Kroger before shortly thereafter reaching an agreement, and Albertsons largely agreed to those same terms.

Just before the strike, the union publicly encouraged Kroger employees to move their pharmacy purchases to and seek employment at the Albertsons stores in the event of a strike. A high-ranking Kroger labor executive emailed his Albertsons counterpart to ask how that company planned to react to such union tactics. The Albertsons executive responded:

We don’t intend to hire any [Kroger] employees and we have

already advised the Safeway division of our position and the

division agrees.

With regards to Rx, we don’t intend to solicit or publicly

communicate that [Kroger] employees should transfer their scripts

to us. However, when a customer brings in a new or transferred

script, we don’t inquire as to why the customer is transferring or

where they work, nor do we make it a practice to turn away

customers.

Others within Albertsons described this exchange as an “agreement” not to hire Kroger employees and not to solicit Kroger pharmacy customers. Originally, plaintiff alleged this agreement violated Colorado state antitrust law but planned to amend to add federal claims. All parties and the court used federal antitrust precedent.

While finding it a close question, the court dismissed the state law claim (and said it would have dismissed any similar federal antitrust law claims) under the nonstatutory labor exemption. While defendants could not cite a case that applied the exemption outside of a multiemployer bargaining unit, the court found it more telling that the plaintiff could not cite a case holding that the exemption could not apply to a case of employers engaged in parallel, bilateral negotiations with the same union.

The court distinguished Safeway on two grounds. First, here both collective bargaining agreements ended at nearly the same time while in Safeway the agreement of the non-member of the multiemployer unit ended several months later. Second, unlike the profit-sharing agreement in Safeway, here any agreement that Albertsons would not hire Kroger employees operated only in the labor market, not the product market where the two employers compete. The court characterized the pharmacy discussion as, at most, communication by Albertsons “that it would not start to actively solicit Kroger employees’ prescriptions, thereby maintaining the status quo.”

Takeaways

Continue reading →

Banks, Stablecoins, and Base by Coinbase: Fighting for Open Money Without Gatekeepers

February 10, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

Congress didn’t set out to redesign money with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Yet that is where the debate has now landed. The bill—intended to end regulation‑by‑enforcement and draw a workable line between SEC and CFTC authority—has stalled because stablecoins force a choice the status quo would rather avoid. Are digital dollars going to be corralled into a bank‑shaped box, or will they remain programmable cash that pressures incumbents to compete on yield, speed, and service? Everything else is downstream of that decision.

Banks, Stablecoins and the Need for Real Competition

Stablecoins have become the functional rails of crypto today—payment instruments, settlement media, and trading collateral—sometimes accompanied by yields from lending, reserve income, or activity‑based rewards. Banks see this as deposit‑like remuneration without bank‑level prudential rules. And they warn of deposit flight and regulatory arbitrage.

Senate negotiators have responded with draft provisions that limit “interest for simply holding a stablecoin,” while permitting some incentives tied to real activity (e.g., payments volume). Crypto firms counter that this approach smuggles the legacy model back in: if a fully reserved, transparent stablecoin can’t share its economics with users or experiment with market incentives, what exactly is the innovation? And if tokenized assets are pushed back into broker‑dealer rails, how meaningful is on‑chain finance?

This is not a sterile policy scuffle. It’s a market‑structure fork. Treat stablecoins like quasi‑deposits with minimal yield and centralized chokepoints, and you’ll get the same existing incumbent-protection and innovation-fenced banking channels. Treat them as programmable, interoperable dollars with risk‑appropriate guardrails, and you’ll get competition—on rates, UX, interoperability, and transparency.

Base—Coinbase’s Layer‑2 Network

Meanwhile, the market is already revealing the tradeoffs. Consider Base—Coinbase’s Layer‑2 on Ethereum’s OP Stack. It solves real problems: cheaper transactions, faster confirmation, and effortless ramps. It is the rare bridge from Web2 familiarity to Web3 innovation, powered by the distribution of an innovative public company. A very successful project so far indeed.

But Base also shows how “Web3‑branded” platforms can quietly recreate Web2 chokepoints. Today, a single sequencer—run by Coinbase—controls transaction ordering, inclusion, and liveness. Users can self‑custody, yet the network’s heartbeat depends on one operator.

At the asset layer, USDC, a stablecoin co‑created by Coinbase and Circle, is the default settlement currency. This is unsurprising given reserve‑yield economics and compliance benefits. While other tokens can technically be used on Base, the user experience strongly privileges USDC, shaping behavior through design rather than choice. None of this makes Base malign; it makes Base effective. But it also makes it an ecosystem managed by corporate incentives rather than a neutral public protocol.

The Bitcoin and Nostr Lesson: Protocols as Antidotes to Chokepoints

Here’s where Bitcoin and Nostr matter as living proof that open protocols can scale human coordination without reintroducing gatekeepers.

Bitcoin is bearer money with credible neutrality. There is no issuer to lean on, no off‑chain promise to redeem, no corporate switch to flip. With Lightning, small payments settle in native BTC without bridges or custodial wrapping. That architecture prevents a single firm from deciding who transacts, in what order, or at what fee. It’s not frictionless; liquidity management and UX remain hard. But Bitcoin/Lightning delivers something corporate L2s cannot promise: a censorship‑resistant exit option. When “Web3‑branded” stacks drift toward walled gardens, the mere availability of a neutral settlement layer disciplines behavior—users and developers can route around control points.

Nostr offers the same lesson for communications. It is a simple, open event protocol for publishing and relaying messages. There are no accounts to seize, no central servers to pressure, and no mandatory app store chokepoints. Anyone can run a relay, anyone can build a client, and identities travel with the user, not the platform. Like Bitcoin, Nostr isn’t perfect: spam resistance, moderation norms, and discovery are hard. But its permissionless interoperability and portable identity prevent the quiet re‑centralization that Web2 perfected and “Web3‑branded” platforms sometimes emulate. In practice, Nostr and Lightning together show how value and speech can move across a network where the rules are baked into open code rather than corporate policy.

The point isn’t to crown Bitcoin and Nostr as universal solutions (although we think highly of them): It’s to recognize their governance properties—credible neutrality, forkability, non‑discriminatory access—as the antidote to the chokepoints corporate platforms tend to recreate nowadays.

How Corporate L2s Can Earn Trust—and Avoid Antitrust Trouble

The solution isn’t to reject polished, easy‑to‑use platforms. It’s to make sure that as these networks grow, they don’t quietly become new chokepoints. Base—and any corporate‑run Layer‑2—could earn long‑term trust by committing to three simple principles:

Decentralize the Infrastructure

Right now, Base relies on a single sequencer. To avoid becoming a gatekeeper, it should eventually open this role to many independent operators. That means multiple entities helping order transactions, clear rules preventing any one party from dominating, and technical safeguards so users can always get their transactions included—or withdraw to Ethereum—if something goes wrong.

Neutralize the Asset Layer

If the network defaults to USDC everywhere, people will naturally end up using it—even if they’d prefer something else. Base could avoid that by offering a neutral asset picker and allowing different stablecoins, ETH, and even non‑custodial Bitcoin payment paths, to truly compete on equal footing. It should also separate any reserve income from network decisions and make switching between assets or providers easy and low‑cost.

Build Fair, Transparent Governance

To avoid ever looking like a walled garden, Base could give more groups a seat at the table, such as developers, users, and independent voices. Clear rules against self‑preferencing, public audits, transparent fee policies, and easy data portability, all would make the ecosystem more antitrust friendly.

These three steps aren’t just good crypto hygiene. They are antitrust risk reducers. The legal vulnerability for a dominant exchange‑wallet‑L2 bundle is the appearance of leveraging distribution power to foreclose rivals—by steering order flow, setting biased defaults, or discriminating in access. Open sequencers, neutral defaults, and documented non‑discrimination would make Base look less like a vertically integrated gatekeeper and more like neutral infrastructure.

What Congress Should Do

Policy should reflect the same principles.

Continue reading →

Germany’s Competition Authority Sanctions Amazon Over Its Control of Seller Pricing on its Marketplace

February 8, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Luis Blanquez

On 5 February 2026, Germany’s competition authority, the Bundeskartellamt, announced a landmark ruling prohibiting Amazon from continuing practices that influenced how independent sellers priced their products on the German Amazon Marketplace. The authority also ordered Amazon to disgorge €59 million in economic benefits that it determined were gained through these anticompetitive practices.

At the center of the ruling lies Amazon’s dual role in Germany’s online retail ecosystem. As in the United States, the company not only sells products through its own retail arm, Amazon Retail, but also operates the Amazon Marketplace, a platform where independent third‑party sellers list and sell goods directly to consumers. About 60% of all items sold on Amazon.de come from these independent sellers, who bear full responsibility for setting prices and managing the financial risks of their businesses.

The Bundeskartellamt concluded that Amazon used a variety of “price control mechanisms” to review whether sellers’ prices were “too high.” When Amazon’s systems flagged a price as unacceptable, the company responded by either fully removing the listing from the platform or excluding the offer from the Buy Box—the prominent purchasing option that strongly influences sales volume. These measures can severely limit a seller’s visibility and revenue.

According to the authority, this system created a significant competitive imbalance. President Andreas Mundt emphasized that Amazon directly competes with the very sellers who rely on its platform. When a dominant marketplace operator can restrict or manipulate competitor pricing—even indirectly through algorithmic controls—it risks shaping the entire price landscape according to its own commercial interests. Mundt warned that such interference could prevent sellers from covering their costs, potentially pushing them off the marketplace entirely.

The Bundeskartellamt made clear that it does not object to Amazon’s ambition to offer low prices to consumers. Instead, the issue lies in how Amazon has attempted to achieve that goal. Regulators argue that Amazon can provide competitive prices without directly constraining the pricing choices of independent sellers. To address the issue, the authority has restricted Amazon from using price control tools except under narrowly defined circumstances—particularly cases of excessive or exploitative pricing—and only in compliance with detailed requirements that the Bundeskartellamt has now established.

The regulator highlighted the implications of Amazon’s market position. Amazon accounts for roughly 60% of Germany’s online goods retail market, making it an undeniably influential digital gatekeeper. Because independent sellers depend heavily on Amazon’s infrastructure and visibility, any internal policy that affects pricing can have sweeping economic impact. The authority asserts that Amazon’s previous practices allowed it to act as both a competitor and an arbiter of acceptable pricing behaviors, creating a structural conflict of interest.

By limiting Amazon’s ability to use these mechanisms, the Bundeskartellamt aims to restore pricing freedom to third‑party sellers and safeguard the competitive process. The decision stresses the need to prevent dominant digital platforms from exploiting their market position by embedding competitive advantages into the algorithms and systems that govern visibility, listing status, and price acceptability. According to the authority, this type of intervention is crucial to ensuring that Amazon cannot extend its competitive power on the marketplace into the broader retail economy.

Continue reading →

Protein Bars, Market Definition and Injunctions

January 26, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Author: Steven Madoff

As an avid runner, I am always looking for the perfect protein bar. A great protein bar must find the balance between taste and texture on the one hand and nutritional value and low-caloric content on the other. Usually, a certain amount of fat is needed for a savory taste and smooth texture, but that also often increases the bar’s calorie count.

So, it was interesting to discover an antitrust case involving this particular dilemma. The case was Own Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods LLC vs. Linus Technology, Inc., Epogee LLC, and Peter Rahal. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 2025 by three low-calorie food producers that use esterified propoxylated glycerol (“EPG”), a patented fat replacement vegetable-based ingredient that reduces calories by 92% compared to an equal amount of ordinary animal fat ingredients. EPG is produced only by a company named Epogee, because it holds the exclusive patent for EPG. The three food-producer plaintiffs make and distribute nut butter spreads, sauces and chocolates, respectively.

The defendant is Linus Technology operating under the name David Protein, which produces and distributes protein bars, marketed under the name David Bars, which also contain EPG. On May 29, 2025, David Protein acquired Epogee. After being acquired, Epogee (now part of David Protein) notified the three plaintiffs that it would no longer accept new orders for EPG.

The plaintiffs sued under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and New York State’s antitrust statute, The Donnelly Act, and sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. They claimed the defendants violated those statutes by arranging for the acquisition of Epogee and using their control over EPG to create an artificial monopoly. Specifically, they claimed that Epogee maintained a reliable EPG supply for all qualified food manufacturers before the corporate transition, and that after David Protein acquired it, Epogee advised the plaintiffs that it would no longer fulfill new orders for EPG. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged that Epogee stockpiled EPG to ensure that plaintiffs had no access to EPG. Defendants argued that plaintiffs are solely responsible for their predicament because they failed to secure long-term supply contracts, unlike other Epogee customers who still receive supply.

Plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from, among other things, limiting EPG access to its pre-existing customers, maintaining artificial supply shortages, creating artificial scarcity of EPG through inventory manipulation and concealing information about EPG availability.

The applicable antitrust statutes typically require the plaintiffs to define the relevant product and geographic markets in which the products compete, along with the alleged restraint of trade.

Courts generally define the relevant market as all products reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes. Interchangeability is the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it. Two products are reasonably interchangeable where there is cross-elasticity of demand – where consumers would respond to a slight increase in in the price of one product by substituting for the other.

Continue reading →

US Antitrust Agency Publishes Revised HSR Notification Thresholds and Filing Fees For 2026

January 18, 2026 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak, Luis Blanquez and Kristen Harris.

On January 14, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its usual annual announcement to increase the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act thresholds. The 2026 thresholds will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

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 this option has been––and continues to be––suspended.

The HSR Act notification requirements apply to transactions that satisfy the specified “size of transaction” and “size of person” thresholds. The FTC adjusts these thresholds 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 $133.9 million––the “size of transaction” threshold. A notification is thus not required when the value of the voting securities and assets is below this threshold.

Third, if the transaction exceeds $133.9 million but does not exceed $535.5 million—the “size of the persons” threshold––then at least one party involved in the transaction must have annual net sales or total assets of at least $267.8 million, and the other party must have annual net sales or total assets of at least $26.8 million.

Parties with transactions valued at more than $535.5 million must report them regardless of the size of the parties, unless an HSR Act exemption applies.

Continue reading →

Update: Is it Time for Antitrust Lawyers and Private Equity Clients to Pay Attention to Interlocking Directorates and Section 8 of the Clayton Act? The Answer is Still Yes

November 11, 2025 | Bona Law PC

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits certain interlocking directorates between competing corporations. But while the prohibition has been around since 1914, most antitrust lawyers pay little attention to it, partly because companies can quickly resolve any issues voluntarily.

We first brought Section 8 to the attention of our readers in 2022 because of comments by then-AAG Jonathan Kanter. Even more recent actions by the agencies, detailed below, plus the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act’s new requirements under the updated filing form—soliciting information on overlapping directorates—should be enough for everyone to keep a closer eye on the issue, in particular private equity firms.

Clayton Act, Section 8 Basics

The prohibitions of Section 8, in its most recent form, can be simply stated: No person can simultaneously serve as an officer or director of competing corporations, subject to certain jurisdictional thresholds and de minimis exceptions. Truly understanding the prohibition, however, requires understanding all those italicized terms.

First, Section 8’s prohibition applies only if each corporation has “capital, surplus, and undivided profits,” or net worth, of $10M or more, as adjusted. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for annually adjusting that threshold for growth in the economy. Currently, for 2025, the thresholds are $51.380 million for Section 8(a)(1) and $5.138 million for Section 8(a)(2)(A). These new thresholds took effect on February 21, 2025.

Section 8 provides an exception where the competitive sales of either or each of the corporations is de minimis. Specifically for 2025, no interlocks are prohibited if (1) both of the entities have capital, surplus and undivided profits of $51,380,000 or less, or the competitive sales of either entity are less than $5,138,000; 2) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2% of that corporation’s total sales; or 3) the competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4% of that corporation’s total sales.

Originally, Section 8 applied only to directors of corporations; however, the 1990 amendments extended the coverage to officers, defined as those elected or chosen by the corporation’s Board. Despite the clear wording of the statute limiting it to officers and directors, some courts have considered the possibility that Section 8 might apply when a corporation’s non-officer employee was to be appointed a director of a competitor corporation.

The language of Section 8 clearly applies to interlocks between competing corporations. An interlock between a corporation and a competing LLC would not be covered by the statutory language or the legislative history of the original statute or amendment. The FTC and DOJ have not explicitly weighed in on application to non-corporations, although the FTC’s implementing regulations for Hart-Scott-Rodino cover LLC explicitly as “non-corporate interests” different from corporations. Still, the spirit of Section 8 would seem to cover any such non-corporate interlock. Also, any corporate director who also serves a similar role for a competing LLC would face an increased risk of violating Sherman Act Section 1.

Section 8 clearly applies if the same natural person sits on the boards of the competing corporations. It might also apply if the same legal entity has the right to appoint a natural person to both Boards, even if that entity appoints two different natural persons to the two Boards. That interpretation is consistent with the Clayton Act’s broad definition of “person” and has been supported by both the FTC and DOJ and the one lower court to consider the question.

As with other parts of the antitrust laws, the question of competition between the two corporations requires some analysis. The few courts to look at the question have held that corporations that could be found to violate Sherman Act Section 1 through an agreement would be considered competitors. On the other hand, these same courts did not define competitors more narrowly to be those corporations that would not be allowed to merge under the more extensive analysis of Clayton Act Section 7.

Recent DOJ and FTC Action

The DOJ has traditionally enforced Section 8’s prohibition on interlocking directorates, which has become a priority under the current Administration.

As a result, there have recently been an increasing number of instances where directors have resigned to resolve DOJ concerns.

In April 2024, two directors from Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. (WBD)–– Steven A. Miron and Steven O. Newhouse––resigned from the WBD board after the Antitrust Division expressed concerns that their positions on both the WBD and Charter Communications Inc. boards potentially violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Charter, with its Spectrum cable service, and WBD, through its Max streaming subscription services, both provide video distribution services to customers. The division’s enforcement efforts to date have unwound or prevented interlocks involving at least two dozen companies.

More recently, in September 2025, the FTC found that Sevita and Beacon Specialized Living Services, Inc.—both owned by private equity investors and providers of services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities—had overlapping board members, violating Section 8 of the Clayton Act. As a result, three directors resigned from the board of Sevita Health following FTC enforcement actions. The FTC didn’t engage in any formal legal action against the companies, and the resignations were enough to resolve the FTC’s competition concerns without further legal action.

Recent DOJ Speeches

The DOJ action that led to the resignations is consistent with recent speeches by DOJ officials

In 2022, Jonathan Kanter, former assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division at the DOJ, made some significant remarks about Section 8. First, he highlighted the fact that the Division is committed to litigating cases using the whole legislative toolbox that Congress has given them to promote competition, including Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Second, he reminded everyone that Section 8 helps prevent collusion before it can occur by imposing a bright-line rule against interlocking directorates. Third, that for too long, Section 8 enforcement has essentially been limited to their merger review process. And last but not least, that the Division will start ramping up efforts to identify violations across the broader economy and will not hesitate to bring Section 8 cases to break up interlocking directorates. Another former head from the FTC made a similar statement back in 2019, indicating how Section 8 of the Clayton Act protects against potential information sharing and coordination by prohibiting an individual from serving as an officer or director of two competing companies.

Continue reading →