Antitrust Agency Insights: Developments at the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies — Third Quarter 2025

Letter From the Editors

FTC Non-Compete Developments: From Broad Ban to Targeted Enforcement

I. Background

For much of 2023 and 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) sought to reshape enforcement around non-compete agreements through an ambitious rulemaking effort. In April 2024, the FTC finalized its Non-Compete Clause Rule, which broadly declared that it was an unfair method of competition for employers to enter into or enforce most non-compete agreements with workers. As we discussed in Arnold & Porter’s Antitrust Agency Insights: Third Quarter 2024, the Commission justified this step by claiming that non-competes “negatively affect competitive conditions in labor markets,” “lead to increased market concentration,” and suppress wages.

Courts quickly questioned whether the FTC had authority to issue such a rule. On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas permanently enjoined the FTC from enforcing the rule nationwide in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, holding that “by plain reading” the FTC Act “does not expressly grant the Commission authority to promulgate substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition.”¹ A Florida court in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC reached a similar conclusion,² while a Pennsylvania case was voluntarily dismissed after the Texas decision.³ By the fall of 2024, the rule was effectively blocked.

II. The FTC’s Withdrawal of the Rule

On September 5, 2025, the FTC announced it would stop defending the Non-Compete Clause Rule. In its announcement, the Commission stated that it had taken steps to dismiss its appeals in both Ryan and Properties of the Villages.⁴ Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak issued a joint statement calling the ban “indefensible,” noting that it “extinguish[ed] thirty million existing private contracts,” displaced “hundreds of existing laws across forty-six States,” and sought to outlaw a contract “lawful since the eighteenth century.”⁵ They concluded: “The Rule’s illegality was patently obvious.”⁶

The chairman and commissioner stressed this was not a wholesale defense of non-competes. They acknowledged that “noncompete agreements can be pernicious. They can be, and sometimes are, abused to the effect of severely inhibiting workers’ ability to make a living.”⁷ Commissioner Meador had made a similar point at his confirmation hearing, observing that non-competes have “been overused and abused,” and “there’s a lot more the FTC can do, including through competition enforcement actions” focused on non-competes. What the FTC rejected was the use of “an indefensible rule” that “would never survive judicial review.”⁸ Instead, they pledged to focus resources on “patrolling our markets for specific anticompetitive conduct that hurts American consumers and workers, and taking bad actors to court.”⁹

III. Case-By-Case Enforcement

In an effort to move away from categorical bans toward case-specific enforcement, the FTC issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comment on the scope and effects of non-competes.¹⁰ The FTC explained that while such clauses may sometimes protect training or trade secrets, they are often “imposed as a matter of course” and may “unjustifiably prevent workers from moving to better jobs, impede new business formation, and harm rival employers’ ability to compete.”¹¹ The FTC warned these harms can lead to “lower worker earnings, lost innovation, [and] higher consumer prices.”¹²

The FTC’s action against Gateway Services, Inc. illustrates this approach. On September 4, 2025, the FTC announced that Gateway, a pet cremation company, had required nearly all of its 1,800 employees (including drivers and crematory staff) to sign non-compete agreements barring them from working anywhere in the industry for a year after leaving the company.¹³ The FTC alleged these agreements unfairly suppressed mobility and impeded competition.¹⁴

Under a proposed consent order, Gateway must stop enforcing these non-compete agreements, notify employees they are released, and refrain from imposing new ones for 10 years except in narrow circumstances.¹⁵ The order would lift restrictions on nearly 1,800 workers that the FTC described as “so pernicious and so onerous as to make them anticompetitive.”¹⁶ FTC Bureau of Competition Director Daniel Guarnera explained that “[t]he antitrust laws protect workers from noncompete agreements that harm competition, including by preventing workers from switching to better-paying jobs or starting their own businesses.”¹⁷

The FTC’s continued focus on non-competes was further illustrated just days later as Chairman Ferguson sent letters to several large healthcare employers and staffing firms urging them to review their agreements — including non-competes and other covenants — to ensure they are lawful.¹⁸ The letters warned that unreasonable restrictions on nurses, physicians, and other professionals can limit employment options and reduce patient choice, with critical consequences in rural areas.¹⁹ FTC Bureau of Competition Deputy Director Kelse Moen emphasized that “enforcement against unreasonable noncompete agreements remains a top priority,” encouraging “all employers — not just those receiving letters today — to review their contracts closely.”²⁰

In addition to these actions, the FTC has announced it will host a public non-compete workshop titled “Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements” on October 8, 2025, at the Commission’s Constitution Center headquarters.²¹ Organized by the FTC’s Labor Task Force, the workshop will bring together policy experts, economists, advocates, and workers to discuss the impact of non-compete agreements and strategies for enforcement.²² The workshop, which will be open to the public in person and via livestream, highlights the FTC’s continued focus on labor market practices and illustrates its shift from broad rulemaking efforts to case-specific actions.

IV. Comparing the Approaches

The shift from the Biden FTC’s broad rulemaking strategy to the current FTC’s case-driven model reflects both continuity and change. Both administrations characterized non-competes as a threat to labor competition. The difference lies in the tools used: the Biden FTC’s broad ban faltered in court. By contrast, the current Trump-Vance FTC appears to be targeting litigation or settlement-based enforcement. In addition to issuing RFI and sector-specific warning letters, the FTC has created a cross-agency Joint Labor Task Force to monitor resources against what it describes as “unfair and unreasonable employment agreements that drive down wages and reduce job mobility.”²³ Consent orders like the one in the Gateway action demonstrate how this strategy can deliver direct, legal relief for workers, while signaling to employers that labor-market practices remain an enforcement priority.

V. Takeaways

The end of the FTC’s Non-Compete Clause Rule is not the end of FTC scrutiny of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Instead, the FTC has moved from a one-size-fits-all ban to a fact-specific, case-by-case strategy. Employers should expect more information gathering, targeted industry engagement, and enforcement actions against potentially overbroad or unjustified agreements. Companies relying on non-compete agreements with workers should review these agreements for scope, duration, geography, and business justification, and ensure compliance with state and federal law. As Chairman Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak stated, the FTC intends to “protect American workers” by “patrolling our markets for specific anticompetitive conduct … and taking bad actors to court.”

* * *

FTC Staff Updates

• FTC Appoints Emma Mittelstaedt Burnham as Healthcare Competition Leader. On September 9, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson named Emma Mittelstaedt Burnham as Associate Director for Healthcare in the Bureau of Competition. Burnham, formerly Director of Criminal Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, has led investigations in sectors including the generic pharmaceutical industry. Chairman Ferguson praised her as “an invaluable champion in the FTC’s ongoing fight to protect Americans’ access to affordable, high-quality healthcare.”
  • Read the Press Release

• Supreme Court Agrees to Hear FTC Commissioner Removal Challenge. On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned order permitting President Trump to proceed with the removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, while agreeing to hear her case in the December 2025 argument session. The order stays a lower court ruling that had reinstated Slaughter, a Democrat whose term was set to run until 2029. The justices directed briefing on whether statutory “for cause” removal protections for FTC commissioners are constitutional and whether courts may order reinstatement of improperly removed officials.
  • Read the News Article
  • Read the Unsigned Order

FTC Cases and Proceedings

• FTC Partially Grants EnCapVerdunXCL Petition. On July 7, 2025, the FTC announced that it approved in part and denied in part a petition by EnCap, Verdun, and XCL to modify the 2022 consent order relating to EnCap’s acquisition of EP Energy, which had required divestiture of EP Energy’s Utah assets and prior FTC approval for certain future acquisitions in the Uinta Basin. The companies sought removal of the prior-approval requirement, citing their exit from the market. The Commission determined the order warranted some modification and (1) removed the prior-approval requirement for any reentry into the Uinta Basin oil market and (2) replaced it with a prior-notice requirement obligating EnCap, Verdun, and XCL to notify the FTC of subsequent acquisitions involving oil- or gas-producing assets in the region after reentry. The Commission voted 2-0-1.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Consent Order
  • Read the Petition
  • Read the Order Modifying the Petition

• FTC Denies Scott Sheffield’s Petition in Exxon–Pioneer Case on Procedural Grounds. On July 15, 2025, the FTC denied a petition from Scott Sheffield, founder and former CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, to reopen and set aside the January 2025 consent order related to Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer. The final consent order prohibits Exxon from placing Sheffield on its board of directors or in any advisory role, and restricts Exxon from appointing other Pioneer employees or directors to its board for five years, resolving FTC concerns that Sheffield’s board service could facilitate anticompetitive coordination or create an unlawful interlocking directorate. The Commission explained that Sheffield is not a party to the final order and therefore cannot invoke the petition process under Rule 2.51 of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, however, his arguments may be considered under Rule 3.72. The vote was 3-0.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Petition
  • Read the Final Consent Order

• FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Exxon–Pioneer Order on the Merits. On July 17, 2025, the FTC voted 3-0 to reopen and vacate the January 2025 final consent order that had barred Exxon from appointing former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield to its board or management roles for five years. The May 2024 complaint underlying the order alleged Sheffield had coordinated oil output levels and that his board service would raise anticompetitive concerns, but the Commission concluded the complaint failed to plead a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, contained no allegations of anticompetitive effects from Exxon’s acquisition of Pioneer, disregarded the Merger Guidelines, and undermined precedent. Although Sheffield’s petition to vacate the order was denied for lack of standing, the FTC exercised its authority to set aside the order in the public interest, citing the deficiencies of the complaint and the risk to the Commission’s credibility. Exxon consented to vacatur and waived its rights under Rule 3.72(b).
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Order

• FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Chevron–Hess Order. On July 17, 2025, the FTC voted 3-0 to reopen and vacate the January 2025 final consent order that had barred Chevron from appointing Hess CEO John B. Hess to its board of directors. The earlier complaint alleged Hess had conveyed “supportive messaging” to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and that his presence on Chevron’s board would heighten risks of aligning production with OPEC decisions, but upon review the FTC found the complaint (1) failed to plead a Section 7 violation of the Clayton Act, (2) contained no allegations that the Chevron–Hess merger would be anticompetitive, (3) did not claim the deal would raise market concentration or coordination risks, and (4) disregarded the FTC’s Merger Guidelines and precedent. The FTC concluded that maintaining the restriction would harm its credibility and mission, and therefore granted Chevron’s and Hess’ petition to vacate the order as in the public interest.
  • Read the 2025 Press Release
  • Read the 2024 Press Release
  • Read the Reopened and Set Aside Final Consent Order
  • Read our Antitrust Agency Insights – Second Quarter 2025

• Comment Sought on EQT/Quantum Consent Order. On July 22, 2025, the FTC requested public comment on a petition by EQT Corporation, Quantum Energy Partners, and others to reopen and set aside a 2023 consent order that resolved antitrust concerns over Quantum’s $5.2 billion deal with EQT. The original order had barred Quantum from holding an EQT board seat, required divestiture of EQT shares, unwound a joint venture involving mineral rights in the Appalachian Basin, and imposed restrictions to prevent anticompetitive information exchange. The petition argues that circumstances have changed, noting that Quantum fully divested its EQT shares by October 2024 and that the joint venture was dissolved in February 2024. The comment period closed in August 2025.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Petition

• FTC Challenges Edwards Lifesciences/JenaValve Deal. On August 6, 2025, the FTC voted 3-0 to file an administrative complaint and seek a federal court injunction to block Edwards Lifesciences’ proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve Technology, citing concerns that the deal would eliminate head-to-head competition in the development of transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices for aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR). Edwards had acquired JC Medical in July 2024, and by also purchasing JenaValve — the only other company in U.S. clinical trials for a TAVR-AR device — the FTC alleges Edwards would gain control over the only two likely entrants, stifling innovation, reducing treatment options, and risking higher costs for patients. The complaint emphasizes that JenaValve’s Trilogy device is poised to be the first commercial TAVR-AR product, and that direct competition between JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary has driven innovation. The FTC stated that Edwards declined to resolve concerns by divesting JC Medical.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Complaint

• “Clean Truck” Antitrust Inquiry Closed. On August 12, 2025, the FTC voted 3-0 to close its investigation into whether Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR, Volvo Group, and their trade association violated antitrust laws through the “Clean Truck Partnership” with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The FTC had raised concerns that the agreement restricted output of internal combustion engines, allowed cross-enforcement among competitors, and entrenched terms lacking political accountability. Since then, Congress and President Trump took action that nullified CARB’s Environmental Protection Agency waivers, the manufacturers subject to the investigation disclaimed the agreement, and all parties to the investigation provided binding commitments not to enforce or reenter similar restrictive agreements. The manufacturers agreed to act independently in truck sales and avoid future deals with regulators that involve unlawful cross-enforcement, while the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association pledged not to negotiate such agreements for members.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the FTC’s Closing Statement
  • Read Chairman Ferguson’s Statement

• FTC Protects Workers From Non-Competes (Gateway Services). On September 4, 2025, the FTC voted 3-1 to issue a complaint and proposed consent order against Gateway Services, Inc., the nation’s largest pet cremation company, requiring it to stop enforcing broad non-compete agreements imposed on nearly 1,800 employees. Since 2019, Gateway’s non-competes barred employees from working in the pet cremation industry nationwide for a year after leaving the company, regardless of role or pay level. The FTC alleged these agreements unfairly restricted worker mobility, suppressed wages, and impeded competition by discouraging entry or expansion of rival firms. The proposed consent order requires Gateway to (1) cease entering, maintaining, or enforcing non-competes (with limited exceptions), (2) notify employees that their agreements are void, and (3) refrain from prohibiting employee solicitation of customers except in limited, direct-contact cases. The order reflects the Trump-Vance FTC’s broader priority on labor market competition and follows the creation of its Joint Labor Task Force.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Complaint
  • Read the Proposed Consent Order
  • Read Chairman Ferguson’s Statement
  • Read Our Blog Post

• Resignations at Sevita Board Over Interlocking Directorates. On September 15, 2025, the FTC announced that three members of the Board of Directors of Sevita Health have resigned in response to FTC enforcement efforts concerning interlocking directorates. This resignation resolves concerns the FTC had about shared board representation between Sevita and Beacon Specialized Living Services, entities providing residential services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
  • Read the Press Release

• FTC Alters Final Consent Order in Omnicom-IPG Advertising Merger. On September 26, 2025, following a public comment period, the FTC approved a final order resolving its antitrust concerns over Omnicom’s $13.5 billion acquisition of IPG. The order bars Omnicom from denying advertising dollars to media publishers based on political or ideological viewpoint — unless explicitly directed to do so by its advertiser clients — and imposes a compliance monitor to oversee implementation. In support, the FTC modified the proposed order in response to comments, clarified its scope, and secured a 2-0-1 vote (with Commissioner Mark Meador recused).
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Complaint
  • Read the Final Order

• FTC Denies Petition to Reopen Quantum-EQT Consent Order. On September 30, 2025, the FTC unanimously denied a petition from Quantum Energy Partners seeking to reopen and set aside a 2023 consent order tied to its $5.2 billion deal with EQT Corporation. The Commission found Quantum failed to show changed circumstances or a public interest basis for vacating the order, emphasizing that its obligations remain in effect.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Final Order

• FTC Sues Zillow and Redfin Over Allegedly Unlawful Agreement. On September 30, 2024, the FTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that Zillow and Redfin entered into an allegedly illegal agreement that the FTC asserts eliminated Redfin as an independent competitor in the internet listing services market for multifamily rental advertising. According to the FTC’s complaint, Zillow allegedly paid Redfin $100 million and other compensation in exchange for Redfin’s agreement to terminate advertising contracts, withdraw from competing in multifamily advertising for up to nine years, and act only as an exclusive syndicator of Zillow listings. The FTC contends this arrangement violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act, reduces competition, raises advertising costs for property managers, and diminishes incentives to improve user experience for renters. The complaint seeks to block the agreement and contemplates divestiture or restructuring to restore competition. The Commission vote was 3-0.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Complaint

DOJ Cases and Proceedings

• Live Entertainment CEO Indicted in Bid-Rigging Case. On July 9, 2025, a grand jury indicted the CEO of Oak View Group for allegedly conspiring to rig the bidding for the development and management of a public university arena in Austin, Texas. DOJ alleges the conspiracy spanned years, subverted competitive procurement, and harmed taxpayers and the school.
  • Read the Press Release

• DOJ Closes Investigation into T-Mobile/UScellular Merger. On July 10, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the Antitrust Division issued a detailed statement announcing the Department would not seek an injunction to block T-Mobile’s acquisition of UScellular.
  • Read the Press Release
• DOJ Settles UnitedHealth/Amedisys Merger Challenge. On August 7, 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, joined by state co-plaintiffs, filed a settlement requiring UnitedHealth to divest 164 home health and hospice facilities across 19 states to resolve concerns over its $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys. The decree includes compliance monitoring, provisions to ensure the divestiture buyers can compete effectively, and the potential for eight additional divestitures if approvals fail. In addition, Amedisys will pay a $1.1 million civil penalty and implement antitrust compliance training after falsely certifying responses under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater said the settlement protects vulnerable patients, nurses, and families by preserving competition, while the court will review the agreement under the Tunney Act.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Proposed Settlement

• DOJ Agrees to Settlement With Greystar. On August 8, 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a proposed settlement with Greystar Management Services, the nation’s largest landlord, to resolve allegations it coordinated rental pricing with competitors through RealPage’s algorithm and by directly sharing competitively sensitive data. The decree would bar Greystar from using anticompetitive pricing algorithms, exchanging confidential information with competitors, or attending RealPage meetings of rival landlords, and it authorizes a court-appointed monitor if Greystar uses non-certified third-party software. Greystar must also cooperate with DOJ’s ongoing monopolization claims against RealPage. The settlement will undergo Tunney Act review in federal court in North Carolina.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Proposed Settlement

• Sentencing in NYC Department of Education Bid-Rigging Case. On August 19, 2025, Victor A. Garrido, owner of TranscendBS LLC, was sentenced to six months in prison and ordered to pay over $164,000 in restitution after pleading guilty to rigging bids on contracts for New York City public schools and committing COVID-19 relief fraud.
  • Read the Press Release

• DOJ Indicts Forklift Companies and Executives for Procurement Fraud and Tariff Evasion. On August 21, 2025, a federal grand jury in Denver indicted Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts Inc., and three executives for conspiring to defraud the U.S. government by disguising Chinese-made forklifts as American-made and fraudulently undervaluing imports to evade over $1 million in tariffs. Executives Brian Firkins, Jeffrey Blasdel, and J.R. Antczak face conspiracy, wire fraud, and false statement charges, while the companies face corporate penalties. The indictment alleges the scheme enabled sales of mislabeled forklifts to federal agencies, including Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Indictment

• Executive of Miami-Based Seafood Wholesale Company Pleads Guilty to Price-Fixing Conspiracy. On September 16, 2025, the DOJ announced that Dennis Dopico, Vice President of a Miami-based seafood wholesaler, pleaded guilty to conspiring with competitors to fix prices paid to fishermen for stone crab claws and spiny lobster in Florida. Between 2023 and 2025, Dopico coordinated with rival companies via text messages and calls to suppress and adjust prices during various harvest seasons. The volume of commerce impacted by the conspiracy is approximately $8 million. Dopico admitted to violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act and faces up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine, with sentencing scheduled for January 2026.
  • Read the Press Release

FTC Policy

• FTC Chairman Statement on Revocation of EO 14036. On August 14, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a statement praising President Trump’s decision to revoke the Biden-Harris administration’s 2021 executive order on competition (Executive Order 14036). Ferguson emphasized that America’s markets thrive when the federal government allows them to operate freely, without “picking winners and losers.” He described the withdrawal of the order as a clear shift away from the prior administration’s “top-down competition regulations” and hostility toward mergers and acquisitions. According to Ferguson, the Trump-Vance FTC will instead focus on enforcing the antitrust laws passed by Congress through targeted actions designed to protect consumers and workers, lower the cost of living, improve quality, and foster innovation.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read President Trump’s Revocation

• FTC Issues RFI on Employee Non-Competes. On September 4, 2025, the FTC opened a broad public inquiry into the scope, prevalence, and effects of employer non-compete agreements and invited empirical evidence to inform future enforcement or policy actions. The RFI frames potential harms (wage suppression, reduced mobility and innovation) while acknowledging some legitimate uses, and requests data on alternatives and market impacts across industries. Comments are due by November 3, 2025.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the RFI

• FTC Withdraws Appeal of Non-Compete Rule Challenge. On September 5, 2025, the FTC formally withdrew its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC (5th Circuit) and Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC (11th Circuit), thereby acceding to the vacatur of its previously issued Non-Compete Clause Rule. The Rule, issued under the prior administration, sought to prohibit nearly all non-compete agreements across the U.S., spanning nearly 30 million workers and displacing state laws in 46 states. The Commission, in a 3–1 vote, opted to dismiss the appeals — Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak supported the decision, Mark Meador issued a concurring statement, while Rebecca Slaughter dissented. The Division justified the move by citing the Rule’s sweeping scope and questionable legal grounding, stating that the vacatur underscores that the Rule’s illegality was patently obvious,
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read Chairman Ferguson’s Statement

• FTC Recommends Anticompetitive Regulations for Deletion or Revision. On September 17, 2025, the FTC submitted recommendations to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget identifying regulations across the federal government that should be deleted or revised because they protect incumbents, exclude new market entrants, or otherwise predetermine market winners. (The materials publicly released by the FTC did not specifically identify most of the regulations that the FTC recommended be deleted or revised.) This effort is part of President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Submitted Recommendations
  • Read President Trump’s Executive Order

• Workshop on Non-Compete Agreements. The FTC announced it will host a public workshop titled “Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements.” It is scheduled for October 8, 2025 at the FTC’s Constitution Center and will be open to both in-person and livestream attendance.
  • Read the Press Release

DOJ Policy

• DOJ Launches Whistleblower Rewards Program. On July 8, 2025, the Antitrust Division unveiled a program to pay monetary rewards to individuals who bring credible, original information about collusion, bid-rigging, market allocation, or monopolization schemes. The DOJ detailed eligibility, cooperation expectations, and safeguards to encourage reporting without undermining criminal investigations.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read Our Advisory

• Statement of Interest on Marketplace of Ideas Competition. On July 11, 2025, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest addressing alleged suppression of rival viewpoints on online platforms as a potential competition harm, arguing that certain forms of coordinated “deplatforming” or exclusionary access restrictions could implicate the antitrust laws where they restrain trade or maintain monopoly power. The filing positions the DOJ to weigh in when platform conduct allegedly limits rivals’ ability to reach users, stressing the line between protected editorial discretion and conduct with competitive effects.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the Statement of Interest

• Antitrust Division Statement on Revocation of EO 14036. On August 13, 2025, following the revocation of the 2021 executive order on competition, the Antitrust Division applauded the change, saying it would “recalibrate and modernize” the federal approach to competition to serve a dynamic, innovative economy. The Division said it would continue driving traditional antitrust enforcement while working with agencies to cut back regulatory barriers that insulate incumbents.
  • Read the Press Release

• DOJ and USDA Sign MOU to Protect Competition in Agricultural Markets. On September 29, 2025, the Antitrust Division and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) formalizing a partnership to strengthen competition enforcement in key agricultural markets, including feed, fertilizer, fuel, seed, equipment, and other essential inputs. The MOU establishes regular channels of consultation and designates personnel across both agencies to ensure coordination among attorneys, economists, and technical experts. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater stated that “antitrust enforcement ensures free market competition for agricultural inputs, lowering costs for farmers and prices for consumers,” emphasizing that farmers and ranchers deserve robust protections against anticompetitive conduct.
  • Read the Press Release
  • Read the MOU

Interagency Initiatives

• FTC and DOJ Host Drug Pricing Listening Session. On July 23, 2025, the FTC and DOJ, joined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Commerce, held the second in a series of public listening sessions on lowering Americans’ drug prices through competition. The session solicited input on barriers to generic and biosimilar entry, formulary and Pharmacy Benefit Manager dynamics, and other conduct alleged to dampen competition. The agencies framed the series as part of an administration-wide effort to surface anticompetitive practices and identify policy or enforcement levers to promote affordability.
  • Read the FTC’s Press Release

• FTC and DOJ Host Final Drug Pricing Session. On August 1, 2025, the final session (“Turning Insights into Action”) concluded a series of public events examining potential anticompetitive practices in pharmaceuticals and generics, aimed at informing future enforcement and policy actions.
  • Read the FTC’s Press Release

• FTC and DOJ Release Fiscal Year 2024 HSR Annual Report. On September 17, 2025, the FTC and DOJ’s Antitrust Division published their 47th annual HSR report, summarizing merger enforcement activity during Fiscal Year 2024. The report notes that the agencies took 32 merger enforcement actions in key sectors such as healthcare, groceries, technology, labor, and manufacturing. Eighteen of these actions resulted in administrative or federal court litigation, while other deals were abandoned or restructured due to antitrust concerns.
  
  • Read FTC’s Press Release
  • Read the 47th Annual HSR Report

• Antitrust Division Identifies Target Regulations in Response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers. On September 17, 2025, the Antitrust Division of the DOJ announced its collaboration with the FTC to identify over 125 anticompetitive regulations in response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers. Under the executive order, federal agencies were tasked with reviewing rules that predetermine winners and losers or operate to exclude new entrants. In coordination with the FTC and other agencies, DOJ identified regulations that distort markets and stifle competition, and FTC Chairman Ferguson submitted the consolidated list to the Office of Management and Budget. Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater emphasized that “[l]owering barriers to entry by removing anticompetitive regulations will free America’s innovators and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: drive America’s future success.” (As with the FTC, the DOJ did not publicly release information regarding all of the regulations it recommended be changed or deleted.)
  • Read the DOJ’s Press Release
  • Read President Trump’s Executive Order

• U.S. and Japanese Competition Authorities Meet in Washington. On September 29, 2025, leadership from the U.S. antitrust authorities and Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) held a bilateral meeting in Washington, D.C., continuing decades of engagement on competition enforcement and policy. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater, and JFTC Chairman Eiji Chatani emphasized the importance of U.S.-Japan cooperation in addressing shared antitrust challenges, including in technology and global markets. The agencies reaffirmed their commitment to information-sharing, best practice exchanges, and coordinated approaches under the 1999 U.S.-Japan competition cooperation agreement, which builds on consultations dating back to the 1970s.
  • Read the FTC’s Press Release
  • Read the DOJ’s Press Release

DOJ Speeches

• Remarks at Ohio State University Law School. On August 29, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater delivered prepared remarks in Columbus outlining the Division’s “vigorous and fair” enforcement philosophy, tying it to conservative legal principles and the goal of restoring competition in markets facing consolidation and rapid technological change (artificial intelligence, mobile ecosystems). She previewed an internal “Comply with Care” initiative aimed at curbing litigation and investigation gamesmanship, highlighting concerns about HSR compliance lapses, privilege-log “gamesmanship,” and alleged evidence-preservation failures in tech cases. Slater emphasized the Division’s preference for structural remedies, predictable process, and transparent engagement with parties — while warning that obstruction and process abuses will be met with sanctions and enforcement.
  • Read the Press Release

• Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater Delivers Keynote Address at the 2025 Georgetown Law Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium. On September 16, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater spoke at Georgetown Law stressing that antitrust laws protect markets from exclusionary rules — whether those rules originate with government action or monopolistic private behavior. She characterized the current moment as an inflection point for implementing monopolization remedies and emphasized that remedies should both open markets and encourage innovation.
  • Read the Press Release

• Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater Delivers Keynote at Fordham Competition Law Institute’s 52nd Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy. On September 18, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Slater addressed the Fordham conference under the theme “Winning the Race in Artificial Intelligence Through Real Competition,” emphasizing how competition policy must protect both economic markets and the broader “marketplace of ideas.” She stressed that open competition in innovation is essential for maintaining technological leadership and avoiding the harms of concentrated control.
  • Read the Press Release

• Deputy Assistant AG Dina Kallay Delivers Keynote at Concurrences Dinner in New York. On September 19, 2025, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dina Kallay delivered keynote remarks at the Concurrences Dinner in New York where she focused on the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property, particularly in standards development. She emphasized that collaborative industry standards that lack fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory assurances pose significant competitive risks, including lock-in to infringing technologies, exclusion of implementers, and stifled innovation. She also urged vigilance over “closed, proprietary standards” and practices that misrepresent openness, noting that antitrust enforcement must adapt to guard dynamic competition as technology evolves.
  • Read the Press Release

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Newsletter is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.