On October 6, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB325, a law targeting the use and distribution of certain algorithmic pricing tools. This law is part of a larger legislative trend to try to rein in algorithmic pricing. But while other bills have focused narrowly on the rental housing market and languished in state legislatures, California’s bill targets pricing algorithms in all markets and will take effect in 2026. However, a violation of the new law requires a conspiracy or price coercion, so as a practical matter, it may not extend the range of violations already encompassed by the Cartwright Act.Continue Reading California Passes Broad Limits on “Common Pricing Algorithms”

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has turned the antitrust lens inward, examining and recommending removal or revision of federal regulations it deems as potential barriers to entry and innovation. In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) dated September 16, 2025, Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson identified more than 125 regulations that, in his view, restrict entry, entrench incumbents, or otherwise distort competition (the “Ferguson Letter”). The recommendations were issued pursuant to Executive Order 14267, which directs agencies to reduce anticompetitive regulatory barriers.Continue Reading FTC Recommends Rollback of Anticompetitive Regulations

State oversight of healthcare transactions is continuing to undergo a significant transformation. As tracked in our updated Healthcare Merger Matrix, the number of states implementing or considering expanding antitrust laws targeting proposed deals continues to rise.[1] For instance, Washington and Colorado’s premerger notification laws went into effect on July 27 and August 6, 2025, respectively, and Indiana recently modified its existing transaction notice law to exempt certain practitioner-owned practices.[2] Additionally, New Mexico enacted a permanent version of its temporary transaction notification law with enhanced oversight and enforcement.[3]Continue Reading State Antitrust Enforcement Roundup: Updates to Healthcare Merger Matrix; New Potential Legislation Targeting Private Equity and Other For-Profit Entities in Healthcare

On August 13, 2025, President Trump revoked the Biden Administration’s 2021 Executive Order (Promoting Competition in the American Economy).Continue Reading Trump Revokes Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Antitrust & Competition but other Biden Administration Antitrust Policy Changes Remain in Place

On 9 July 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-188/24 Michelin, addressing the scope of the European Commission’s powers to conduct on-site inspections (so-called dawn raids) under EU competition law. The Court broadly confirmed the Commission’s powers but sided with the claimant in partially annulling the Commission’s inspection decision, highlighting the requirement for a sufficient statement of reasons before the Commission may search companies’ premises. This judgement also gives insights into the European Commission’s increased efforts to uncover anticompetitive conduct ex officio in the context of a significant reduction of immunity/leniency applications. Continue Reading Fishing Expedition or Legitimate Dawn Raid? The Latest on European Commission’s Cartel Enforcement and Dawn Raids from the EU’s General Court

On July 24, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) convened the second of three public listening sessions aimed at identifying barriers to drug price competition in the U.S. healthcare system. The session is part of a broader policy push under Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which mandates a coordinated federal effort to investigate and dismantle anticompetitive practices within the pharmaceutical sector, with the overarching goal of reducing prescription drug costs for Americans. The July 24th session concentrated on issues relating to formulary design, benefit management, and the misuse of regulatory mechanisms that may restrict or delay generic and biosimilar market entry.Continue Reading DOJ and FTC Host Second Session on Structural and Regulatory Impediments to Drug Competition

On Tuesday, July 8, the DOJ Antitrust Division announced a first-of-its-kind Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Program (the “Program”). But the Program’s fine print suggests it may not be as lucrative for whistleblowers as it appears at first blush.Continue Reading New DOJ Antitrust Postal Whistleblower Rewards Program: A Look Under the Shiny Hood

Judge Lewis Liman in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed antitrust complaints brought by direct and indirect purchasers against six major suppliers of concrete admixtures, cement additives, admixtures for mortar, and related products (“CCAs”), alleging that the suppliers conspired to fix prices.[1] Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that between 2017 and present, defendants agreed to raise the prices of CCAs, including through surcharges and price sheets. In addition to these allegedly “parallel” price increases, plaintiffs further alleged:Continue Reading Cement and Concrete Admixture Price Fixing Conspiracy Allegations Not Strong Enough to Survive Motion to Dismiss

As we predicted before the inauguration, Trump 2.0 antitrust enforcers have shown continued support for the pro-worker, anti-tech antitrust agenda that has permeated recent antitrust enforcement through the last two administration changes. This time around, President Trump appointed competition agency leaders in Chair Ferguson at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and AAG Slater at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) who identify with a brand of conservative populism coalescing around many of the same policies and priorities as Biden-appointed competition leaders like FTC Chair Lina Khan. For example, since the inauguration, antitrust agencies under their leadership have forged on with antitrust cases against Big Tech, backed the Biden-era revisions to the merger and labor guidelines, and doubled down on efforts to use antitrust laws to protect American workers.Continue Reading Red Tape Rollback: DOJ’s Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force

The number of U.S. states implementing or considering new antitrust laws (or supplementing existing laws) targeting proposed transactions continues to grow. As detailed in our healthcare merger matrix, many states have focused their attention on the healthcare industry, and that continues to be the case, for example, in New York, where a broad range of proposed transactions involving health care entities could be subject to filing requirements and suspensory rules before they can close.Continue Reading State Antitrust Enforcement Roundup: New Laws; New Potential Legislation; and New (and Broader) Areas of Focus

On August 1, 2023, the New York State’s Department of Health (the “DOH”) began implementation of Public Health Law Article 45-A, the State’s new statutory requirement for advance notice and public disclosure of certain material healthcare transactions (the “Material Transactions law”). Now, in response to questions from the healthcare community regarding the reporting requirements and statutory interpretation, the DOH has released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to clarify the scope and application of the Material Transactions law.Continue Reading New York State Releases Much Anticipated Guidance on Reporting Requirements for Material Healthcare Transactions as Budget Negotiations Near Conclusion, Potentially Expanding Law to Include Pre-Closing Review