Photo of Ann O'Brien

Ann O'Brien

Subscribe to Ann O'Brien's Posts

Ann O'Brien is a partner and co-leader of the firm's Antitrust and Competition Practice Group. She also leads the firm’s Criminal Antitrust and Cartels team. Ann is based in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

Contact:Read more about Ann O'Brien

On September 21, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (WCAS) and U.S. Anesthesia Partners, Inc. (USAP), in the Southern District of Texas, alleging the two companies “[e]xecuted a multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate anesthesiology practices in Texas, drive up the price of anesthesia services provided to Texas patients, and boost their own profits.”Continue Reading FTC Sues Private Equity Firm and Anesthesiology Practice for Antitrust Violations

As generative AI becomes an increasingly integral part of the modern economy, antitrust and consumer protection agencies continue to raise concerns about the technology’s potential to promote unfair methods of competition. Federal Trade Commission (“the FTC”) Chair Lina Khan recently warned on national news that “AI could be used to turbocharge fraud and scams” and the FTC is watching to ensure large companies do not use AI to “squash competition.”[1] The FTC has recently written numerous blogs on the subject,[2] signaling its intent to “use [the FTC’s] full range of tools to identify and address unfair methods of competition” that generative AI may create.[3] Similarly, Jonathan Kanter, head of the Antitrust Division at Department of Justice (“the DOJ”), said that the current model of AI “is inherently dependent on scale” and may “present a greater risk of having deep moats and barriers to entry.”[4] Kanter recently added that “there are all sorts of different ways to deploy machine learning technologies, and how it’s deployed can be different in the healthcare space, the energy space, the consumer tech space, the enterprise tech space,” and antitrust enforcers shouldn’t be so intimidated by artificial intelligence and machine learning technology that they stop enforcing the laws.[5]Continue Reading AI Under the Antitrust Microscope: Competition Enforcers Focusing on Generative AI from All Angles

It has been another busy year for the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF). Formed in 2019, the Department of Justice created the PCSF, a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant, and program funding at all levels of government – federal, state and local. The PCSF is a constellation of partnerships among the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Inspectors General for multiple federal agencies working together to crack down on unlawful anticompetitive activities in the public procurement process.Continue Reading Government Contracting Companies Beware: DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force is Global, Growing, and Going Strong

Antitrust enforcement has been heating up over the last few years in several areas – notably in healthcare and labor.[1] As the antitrust climate intensifies and spreads, private equity (PE) firms are starting to feel the heat, finding themselves the focus of increased antitrust scrutiny. Significantly, antitrust enforcement and litigation risks are moving from the portfolio companies to the PE firms themselves. Three areas of heightened risk stand out: interlocking directorates, roll-ups, and PE divestiture buyers.[2]Continue Reading Hot Antitrust Enforcement Climate Reaches Private Equity

On April 11, 2023, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) issued a public comment on four proposed rules promulgated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“the SEC”). The four proposed rules target national market system (“NMS”) stocks by (1) expanding disclosures of order execution information (“Rule 605 Proposal”);[1] (2) amending minimum pricing increments, access fees, and transparency requirements (“Regulation NMS Proposal”);[2] (3) enhancing competition for certain orders (“Order Competition Proposal”);[3] and (4) establishing a duty of best execution for certain market participants (“Best Execution Proposal”).[4] The DOJ’s comment warns the SEC of the possible negative interactions between the four proposed rules and the antitrust dangers of issuing the rules all at once.Continue Reading DOJ Antitrust Division Cautions SEC on Proposed Equity Market Restructuring

On April 3, 2023, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed a civil complaint against Activision Blizzard Inc. (“Activision”) alleging that the “competitive balance tax” constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,[1] and entered into a proposed consent decree (a binding settlement) that, if approved by a court, would bar the gaming company from imposing a “tax” against its esports leagues that exceed spending limits on player compensation.Continue Reading No More Games: Activision Settles with DOJ Over Esports Compensation

The Department of Justice (DOJ) lost its third jury trial in its mission to secure criminal convictions against companies and executives accused of labor-side antitrust violations on March 22, 2023, when a jury in Maine acquitted four home healthcare staffing executives of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In United States v. Manahe, the DOJ charged Faysal Kalayaf Manahe, Yaser Aali, Ammar Alkinani, and Quasim Saesah with entering into an approximately two-month conspiracy between April and May 2020 not to hire each other’s caretakers and to fix caretaker wages.[1] After the district court declined to dismiss the indictment, holding the DOJ had successfully alleged a per se conspiracy to fix wages and allocate employees, the case proceeded to a two-week trial. At trial, defendants—all immigrants from Iraq, many of whom served as translators for U.S. forces there—admitted that they discussed setting wage levels and refraining from hiring each other’s employees, and even drafted an agreement with signature lines that outlined the terms of defendants’ discussions.[2] Defendants argued that they never reached an agreement in violation of Section 1 because the draft agreement was never signed. Defense counsel emphasized in opening statements that in defendants’ culture, “when dealing with business matters . . . the only way to confirm a commitment is to put it into a formal written contract.” Given the verdict, it appears the jury agreed.Continue Reading DOJ Loses Third Consecutive Antitrust Labor Trial