Republican and Democrat candidates alike have promised along the campaign trail that they will work to address the costs of everyday essentials for American consumers, particularly for food. One of the centerpieces of the Harris-Walz campaign is enacting “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries”[1] and the Trump-Vance campaign has decried the rising price of eggs as a byproduct of the Biden Administration’s economic policies.[2] Candidates’ focus on the checkout counter is unsurprising given reports that rising prices are one of voters’ top concerns this election cycle. And while the Consumer Price Index indicates that the current rate of inflation is 2.4% and on a downward trend,[3] certain data show that the price for food has increased by an average of 25% across urban cities in the United States since 2020.[4]Continue Reading Campaign Promises to Address Rising Prices at the Grocery Store Signal Stronger Price Gouging Investigations, Enforcement Actions, and Prohibitions to Come

On September 28, 2024, Governor Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill No. 3129 (AB 3129), which would have required private equity groups and hedge funds to obtain the Attorney General’s written consent at least 90 days prior to acquisitions or changes of control of certain health care facilities, provider groups, and other providers. More information on the background, evolution, and projected impact of AB 3129 is available at our AB 3129 blog series.[1]Continue Reading Update: Governor Newsom Vetoes California’s AB 3129 Targeting Healthcare Private Equity Deals

Leading up to the U.S. presidential election this November, our Antitrust & Competition team continues to offer insights into what antitrust enforcement may look like under the next presidential administration. In our last post, we analyzed antitrust enforcement under the Biden administration, which highlighted the results of Biden Administration’s aggressive antitrust policies. Under another potential Trump administration, enforcement priorities and agency leadership would be tough to predict. As our guideposts, we will analyze antitrust enforcement under Trump’s first term, 2024 campaign rhetoric, and antitrust priorities laid out in Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project (“Project 2025”), with the understanding that former President Trump has disavowed Project 2025.Continue Reading The Sequel?: Predicting Antitrust Enforcement in a New Trump Administration

Leading up to the U.S. presidential election this November, our Antitrust & Competition team continues to offer insights into what antitrust enforcement may look like under the next presidential administration. As we look forward to the next four years, we should also look back on antitrust enforcement under previous recent administrations. Much has been made of the more aggressive and public stance on antitrust enforcement under the Biden administration. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) (together the “Agencies”) have put forth several significant policy changes and proposed rules, including new merger guidelines and a proposed ban on noncompetes. All that said, at least some of the data may indicate a less radical change in antitrust enforcement under Biden as compared to Trump than the conventional wisdom suggests.Continue Reading Antitrust Under Biden: Taking a Closer Look at the Numbers

Leading up to the U.S. presidential election this November, our Antitrust & Competition team will offer thoughts and insights into what antitrust enforcement will look like under the next presidential administration. While there is at least some uncertainty regarding antitrust enforcement under either a Harris or Trump administration, there is no doubt that the current Biden administration has been extraordinarily active.Continue Reading Election 2024 Coverage: Examining the Future of Healthcare and Antitrust

Yesterday, August 28th, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) (the “Antitrust Agencies”), together with the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) and National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”), signed a new agreement (the Memorandum of Understanding or “MOU”) that seeks to enhance the ability of the FTC and DOJ to investigate the impact of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets.Continue Reading U.S. Federal Antitrust Agencies Announce Cooperation Initiative with Labor Agencies in Merger Review

On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a limited, preliminary injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from enforcing its controversial Final Rule (“Rule”) which purports to ban almost all non-compete agreements. Importantly, Judge Brown’s preliminary order only enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule against the named plaintiffs who opposed it. On August 20, 2024 – just two weeks before the Rule’s effective date – Judge Brown greatly expanded the scope of her initial ruling by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and ordering the Rule be completely “set aside” and “not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024[.]” Judge Brown’s order may be the fatal blow for the Rule, and should end a months-long saga of uncertainty for employers.Continue Reading Final Word on Final Rule? Texas District Court Eviscerates FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

On July 3, District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued an order enjoining the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from enforcing its “Final Rule” against plaintiffs Ryan, LLC (“Ryan”) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”). If implemented, the Final Rule would effectively render nearly all non-compete agreements unlawful. Accordingly, this opinion was one of the most highly anticipated judicial decisions in antitrust and labor and employment law in recent memory.Continue Reading Not So “Final”? Texas Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of FTC’s Noncompete Ban, Leaving Future of Commission’s Rule in Doubt

The United Kingdom remains a key European jurisdiction for competition damages actions, also in a post-Brexit world. In particular the number of collective proceedings for competition damages has significantly increased. This is in particular true for stand-alone claims which do not rely on an infringement finding by a competition regulator. Currently there are nearly fifty pending collective proceedings listed on the CAT’s website. Cases relate to both infringements of anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominance prohibitions and span across a number of industry sectors, including digital, consumer electronics, utilities, financial services.Continue Reading Maturing UK Competition Appeal Tribunal Collective Proceedings Process Sees Uptick in Cases