Antitrust Agency Insights: Developments at the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Agencies — Second Quarter 2026

Letter From the Editors

Traditionally, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ or DOJ Antitrust) have used pre-litigation merger settlements to resolve challenged deals. Although such remedies fell out of favor during the Biden administration, FTC and DOJ leadership in both Trump administrations have accepted divestitures to resolve competitive concerns. In most instances, the agencies have decried behavioral remedies as ineffective relief to anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. Recently, however, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward has reportedly told DOJ Antitrust to seek settlements¹ and the FTC has signaled a potential willingness to consider behavioral remedies in settlements.

Behavioral Remedies Under Both Trump Administrations Prior to 365 Retail Markets

Antitrust leadership during the first Trump administration was clear that behavioral remedies were disfavored. Former Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Makan Delrahim framed the issue in stark terms, emphasizing that “antitrust is law enforcement, it’s not regulation,” and warning that “behavioral remed[ies] supplant[] competition with regulation.”² He further explained that such remedies “require centralized decisions instead of a free market process” and “set static rules devoid of the dynamic realities of the market.” Similarly, Former FTC Chairman Joe Simons articulated a similar view, explaining that the Commission would accept behavioral remedies only in “rare, very limited circumstances.”³ Consistent with this approach, Chairman Simons identified defense industry transactions involving a single government customer as one of the few contexts in which behavioral remedies might be appropriate. Taken together, these statements reflect a consistent enforcement philosophy: behavioral remedies were disfavored because of their perceived administrability challenges, reliance on continued monitoring, and risk of distorting market incentives over time.

Reflecting the narrow circumstances outlined by Chairman Simons, in 2018, the FTC accepted behavioral remedies in Northrop Grumman’s vertical merger with Orbital ATK.⁴ Northrop was “one of four companies capable of supplying the U.S. government with missile systems,” and Orbital was the largest supplier of Solid Rocket Motors (SRMs), which are an essential component for missile systems.⁵ The settlement required Northrop to sell SRMs and related services to Northrop’s three competitors in supplying the United States with missile systems and imposed a firewall, which separated Northrop’s general operations from their SRM division.

Antitrust leadership in the second Trump administration continued course, expressing preference for divestitures and discomfort with behavioral remedies. In his statement regarding the FTC’s May 2025 settlement in Synopsys’ merger with Ansys, current FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson articulated this viewpoint:

“[T]he Trump FTC must be open to settling merger cases … but behavioral remedies should be treated with substantial caution. They are often difficult or impossible for the Commission to enforce effectively and can lock the Commission into the status of a monitor for individual firms rather than a guardian of competition across the entire economy…. [The Commission’s] strong preference should be for structural remedies over conduct remedies.⁶

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bill Rinner made similar statements in June 2025. Speaking at George Washington University, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Rinner explained that under the Trump administration, “[s]tructural remedies are preferred as an “efficient default” principle, primarily informed by their record of effectiveness compared to behavioral remedies.”⁷ He added that there may be times when behavioral remedies offer “necessary and adequate support” to structural relief, but that this caveat “is not an invitation to morph behavioral commitments into structural relief through costly legal alchemy.”

Behavioral Remedy in the 365 Retail Markets/Cantaloupe Settlement

On May 1, 2026, however, the FTC announced a settlement in its investigation of 365 Retail Markets LLC’s acquisition of Cantaloupe, Inc., which included a behavioral remedy.⁸ According to the FTC, 365 Retail is the nation’s largest provider of micromarket kiosks — small, unattended markets that sell fresh produce found in offices. Cantaloupe owned point-of-sale software used by micromarket kiosks and Three Square Market — the second largest micromarket kiosk provider. The FTC alleged that the proposed acquisition would have eliminated competition in the micromarket kiosk market, and that 365 Retail could hinder software integration with competitors, driving up the cost of micromarket kiosks.⁹ The FTC settlement resolved these concerns by requiring Cantaloupe to divest the Three Square Market business. The settlement also required the post-merger company to offer integrations between its software and hardware on fair and non-discriminatory terms to customers and third parties for a 10-year period, and appointed a monitor to ensure 365 Retail’s compliance with the settlement.

Prior to the 365 Retail/Cantaloupe settlement, the second Trump administration’s FTC previously accepted a behavioral remedy in Omnicom Group’s acquisition of the Interpublic Group of Companies, two leading advertising holding companies. However, the behavioral remedy addressed the Commission’s concerns that advertising agencies, including Omnicom after its acquisition of Interpublic, coordinated on decisions not to advertise on particular platforms,¹⁰ “based on Political or ideological viewpoints.”¹¹

In contrast, the behavioral component of the 365 Retail remedy imposes an affirmative, third-party licensing requirement on the combined company. In his statement concerning the 365 Retail settlement, FTC Commissioner Mark Meador reiterated the FTC’s “strong preference for clean divestitures of standalone business lines,” but added that behavioral relief may nevertheless be appropriate when it is “enforceable and designed to address the competitive concern at issue, or directly support[s] the effectiveness of the structural relief.”¹² Commissioner Meador explained that here, 365 Retail could undermine the divestiture by restricting the purchaser of Three Square Market from using the necessary point-of-sale software at commercially reasonable prices. Thus, behavioral relief critically supported the long-term feasibility of spinning Three Square Market off of the combined 365 Retail and Cantaloupe.

Immediately after the 365 Retail settlement, acting-Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Omeed Assefi issued remarks slightly softening the DOJ’s stance on behavioral remedies: “In many cases, structural relief is more certain, effective, and cost-efficient than behavioral remedies,” but that “doesn’t mean structural relief is always preferable to behavioral relief. Structural relief simply allows us to use a scalpel, fix the problem, and get out of the way.”¹³

Takeaways

It remains to be seen whether the antitrust enforcement agencies will increasingly rely on behavioral remedies in merger settlements during the remainder of the second Trump administration. Nevertheless, the 365 Retail settlement shows a significant deviation from the Trump administration antitrust leadership’s prior positions regarding using behavioral remedies as a tool to address competitive concerns in mergers. Going forward, parties subject to an agency investigation should consider whether tailored behavioral relief will be required to support a structural remedy, and how it can be structured in a way to preserve the deal value and assuage enforcer concerns about enforceability.

The 365 Retail settlement has meaningful implications for parties navigating merger investigations under the second Trump administration. Structural remedies remain the starting point. The FTC and DOJ continue to express a clear preference for divestitures, reiterating that they lack the administrability issues present in behavioral remedies. Parties should continue to expect that any proposed remedy package will need to include a robust structural component.

However, the agencies’ approach to behavioral remedies appears to be evolving in the current administration. Rather than rejecting them outright, the FTC has signaled a willingness to consider behavioral remedies, particularly where they are tightly scoped and directly support divestitures. Parties should consider whether conduct commitments can enhance the effectiveness of structural relief, especially in transactions involving vertical integration, digital platforms, or interoperability concerns. For example, non-discrimination obligations, access commitments, and interoperability requirements may be viable tools where they address specific risks of foreclosure or degradation.

Finally, while the agencies’ openness may have increased, it remains bounded. The 365 Retail settlement does not signal a shift toward broad or open-ended behavioral regulation. Instead, it reflects a pragmatic recognition that, in certain cases, narrowly tailored conduct provisions may be necessary to ensure that structural remedies achieve their intended competitive outcomes.

FTC Cases and Proceedings

FTC Seeks Public Comment on Petition to Modify Northrop Grumman Final Order

On April 2, 2026, the FTC sought public comment on Northrop Grumman’s petition to reopen and set aside a final consent order involving Northrop Grumman’s 2018 acquisition of aerospace and defense contractor Orbital ATK. The final consent order requires Northrop Grumman to supply solid rocket motors, or SRMs, to competitors on a non-discriminatory basis. Northrop Grumman contends that the order is no longer necessary to preserve competition. The public comment period closed on May 4, 2026.

• Read the Press Release

FTC Orders Rollins, Inc. to Stop Enforcing Noncompete Agreements

On June 22, 2026, the FTC finalized its consent order with Rollins, Inc. The consent order requires that Rollins, a pest control company, cease enforcing non-compete agreements among its employees. The FTC alleged that the company’s noncompete agreements prohibited employees from working in pest control within a predetermined distance, typically within a 75-mile radius from one of Rollins’ more than 700 locations in the U.S. The FTC also sent warning letters to other pest-control companies to review their employment agreements for potentially anticompetitive noncompete provisions.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order

FTC Reaches Settlement With Advertising Companies WPP, Publicis, and Dentsu

On April 15, 2026, the FTC reached a settlement requiring the advertising companies to cease using common brand safety standards and to not restrict advertising based on politically motivated criteria.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Injunction (Dentsu)
• Read the Injunction (WPP Media)
• Read the Injunction (Publicis)

FTC Reaches Settlement With U.S. Anesthesia Partners Inc. (USAP)

On April 23, 2026, the FTC settled pending litigation with USAP. The FTC had alleged that USAP engaged in unlawful monopolization in purchasing other Texas-based anesthesia providers. The terms of the settlement remain confidential to allow USAP to execute the settlement’s obligations.

• Read the Press Release

FTC Finalizes Consent Order in Valvoline-Greenbriar Deal

On May 7, 2026, the FTC finalized a consent order resolving antitrust concerns related to a deal between Valvoline Inc. and private equity firm Greenbriar Equity Fund V., L.P. (Greenbriar). The consent order requires the divestiture of 45 quick-lube oil change shops to address antitrust concerns surrounding Valvoline’s acquisition of approximately 200 quick-lube oil change outlets from Greenbriar. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the acquisition would eliminate competition across 25 local markets where Valvoline and Oil Changers, a subsidiary of Greenbriar, directly compete in offering quick-lube oil changes. Under the terms of the FTC’s final order, Main Street Auto LLC will acquire the divested outlets from Greenbriar and operate them under the name Oil Changers.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order 

FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson Issues Warning Letter to Mortgage Connect

On May 8, 2026, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson sent a warning letter to national mortgage services provider Mortgage Connect, urging the company to conduct a comprehensive review of its employment contracts, including any noncompete agreements, to ensure they comply with the law. The letter encourages Mortgage Connect to review and discontinue the use of any noncompete or other agreements that are not reasonably necessary and to notify relevant workers of their discontinuance.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Letter

FTC Requires Divestiture of Ambulatory Surgery Centers in Ascension Health-AmSurg Deal

On June 2, 2026, the FTC announced that it would require Ascension Health Alliance (Ascension) to divest several surgery center facilities to complete its proposed $3.9 billion acquisition of AmSurg LLC. The divestiture covers each AmSurg facility in the relevant markets in which the FTC alleged that the proposed transaction would otherwise threaten competition: Nashville, Tenn.; Panama City, Fla.; Tulsa, Okla.; Waco, Texas; and Wichita, Kan. The FTC’s proposed consent order settles allegations that Ascension’s acquisition of AmSurg would limit competition for certain outpatient surgical services performed by gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and orthopedists across the Nashville, Panama City, Tulsa, Waco, and Wichita metro areas.

• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order

FTC Announces Dissolution of Diversity Lab LLC Following an FTC Investigation

On June 5, 2026, the FTC announced that Diversity Lab LLC permanently ceased operations following an FTC investigation. The FTC alleged that Mansfield Certification required law firms to certify that they considered candidate pools made up of at least 30% individuals with particular characteristics. The FTC’s investigation sought information relevant to determining whether the Mansfield agreements were collusive in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.

• Read the Press Release 

FTC Finalizes Consent Order in Sevita Health’s Acquisition of BrightSpring Health Services

On June 10, 2026, the FTC finalized a consent order involving Sevita Health’s acquisition of BrightSpring Health Services Inc.’s community living business. The consent order requires Sevita to divest 128 intermediate care facilities (ICFs), which provide services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and other assets such as day-training programs. The consent order requires Sevita to divest the facilities — located in Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas — to Dungarvin Group Inc., an experienced operator of ICFs. It also requires Sevita to assist Dungarvin in obtaining all licenses, permits, authorizations, or certifications related to, or necessary for, operating the divested facilities.

• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order

FTC Finalizes Consent Order in 365 Retail Market LLC’s Acquisition of Cantaloupe Inc.

On June 17, 2026, the FTC finalized a consent order involving 365 Retail Markets LLC’s acquisition of Cantaloupe Inc. 365 Retail Markets was a provider of micromarket kiosks and Cantaloupe was a provider of micromarket kiosks and of point-of-sale software used in micromarket kiosks. The consent order settles FTC charges alleging that 365 Retail’s initial proposed acquisition of Cantaloupe would have eliminated head-to-head competition, likely driving up the price for micromarket kiosks and related software and services. The consent order requires 365 Retail to divest Cantaloupe’s micromarket kiosk business to Seaga Manufacturing Inc. The consent order also requires 365 Retail to provide its point-of-sale software to third-party competitors on non-discriminatory terms.

• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order

FTC Requires Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. to Divest Generic Drug Products to Complete its Acquisition of Lannett Company Inc.

On June 18, 2026, the FTC announced a proposed consent order, which would resolve its antitrust concerns in Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.’s acquisition of Lannett Company Inc. The FTC alleged that the acquisition would limit competition in the markets for four generic drugs. The proposed consent order requires that Aurobindo divest the four generic products to Quagen Pharmaceuticals LLC. The four generic products to be divested under the consent order are:

• Mycophenolate mofetil oral suspension — an immunosuppressant prescribed to help prevent organ transplant rejection.
• Niacin extended release tablets — a drug used to manage cholesterol levels and to prevent or manage niacin, a B-complex vitamin, deficiency.
• Pilocarpine tablets — a drug used to treat dry mouth, often after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer or in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome, which is an autoimmune disease causing the immune system to attack moisture-producing glands.
• Rabeprazole sodium delayed release tablets — a proton pump inhibitor used to reduce stomach acid and indicated for the treatment of duodenal ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, a condition where the stomach produces too much acid.
• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Consent Order

FTC Files Amicus Brief in CareFirst of Maryland v. Johnson & Johnson

On June 23, 2026, the FTC filed an amicus brief in an antitrust case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit alleging that drug manufacturer Johnson & Johnson illegally maintained a monopoly through anticompetitive conduct. In the brief, the FTC urges that the Fourth Circuit reverse the district court and find that the district court erred in requiring willfulness to find monopolization liability.

• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Amicus Brief

DOJ Cases and Proceedings

DOJ Secures Guilty Plea From Former Air Force Member in Bid Rigging Schemes

On April 2, 2026, the DOJ Antitrust Division secured a guilty plea from Alan Hayward James, a former active-duty Master Sergeant of the U.S. Air Force. James pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy to rig bids. He admitted to inflating the cost of information technology contracts by a total of $37 million and distributing the surplus to himself and co-conspirators.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Secures Prison Sentence From Defendant for Defrauding U.S. Military in Contract Bid Scam

On April 8, 2026, the DOJ Antitrust Division, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, secured a five-year prison sentence from the district judge in the sentencing of a defendant, Jasen Butler, convicted of defrauding the U.S. military in contract bid scams. The defendant, owner of Independent Marine Oil Services LLC, submitted fraudulent invoices to warships, receiving approximately $4.5 million in payments.

• Read the Press Release 

DOJ Files Statement of Interest in California Fire Insurance Case

On May 4, 2026, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in Ferrier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, which is pending in the state Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. This case was brought under California state antitrust law by 60 homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires that occurred in southern California in January 2025. The homeowners allege that the defendants, 16 homeowner insurance companies, engaged in a group boycott by jointly conspiring to cancel the homeowners’ fire insurance policies in the years leading up to the January 2025 fires. As a result, the homeowners claim, they were forced to obtain insurance from a state-run program that offers less protective coverage, resulting in higher out-of-pocket expenses for rebuilding their homes. The defendant insurers moved to dismiss the case, asserting that, under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, they are exempt from antitrust liability under both federal and California antitrust laws that protect petitioning and advocacy directed at government agencies. The statement of interest argues that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should not apply to the insurers’ alleged group boycott of the homeowner policyholders, as the alleged boycott was separate and distinct from any government petitioning activity by the insurers.

• Read the Press Release 
• Read the Statement of Interest

DOJ Announces Settlement With Agri Stats to Resolve Information Sharing Allegations

On May 7, 2026, the DOJ, along with several states, reached a proposed settlement with Agri Stats, Inc., to resolve allegations that Agri Stats’ meat industry reports amounted to an impermissible exchange of information among competitors aimed at facilitating price fixing. Agri Stats is a data-sharing and consulting company engaged in the collection of prices, output, and costs from growers and processors in the broiler chicken, turkey, and pork industries. The settlement imposes a number of conduct restrictions on what data Agri Stats may collect and report, how that data must be aggregated and aged before it can be shared, who may purchase its reports and on what terms, and how compliance with all of these obligations will be monitored and enforced going forward.

• Read the Press Release
• Read Arnold & Porter’s Advisory

DOJ Files Statement of Interest in Corteva Agriscience LLC. v. Inari Agriculture Inc

On May 11, 2026, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in Corteva Agriscience LLC, et al. v. Inari Agriculture Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the dispute, the plaintiff, Corteva, a large commercial seed and plant producer, sued Inari, a recent entry into the seed market, for patent infringement. As required by the Patent Act to receive valid patents for its seeds, Corteva deposited samples of its seeds to the American Type Culture Collection seed depository. Corteva alleged that Inari used this information to unlawfully recreate and iterate on Corteva’s seeds. The DOJ’s statement of interest takes the position that the Patent Act requires the publication of patented information, including the deposit of seeds, that accessing that information is permissible, and that seed deposits exist in part to allow for other companies to iterate and to innovate on patented seeds.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Statement of Interest

DOJ Indicts Chinese Shipping Container Manufacturers and Executives in Price Fixing Conspiracy

On May 19, 2026, the DOJ announced that it had indicted four international shipping container manufacturers and seven of their executives for conspiring to restrict the output and fix the prices of standard unrefrigerated shipping containers. According to the indictment, the conspirators agreed to limit the number of shifts and hours that each production line for standard dry containers could run per day; install video surveillance to ensure all conspirators complied with the agreed-upon limitations; refrain from building new container factories; and establish a fund and mechanism to financially penalize any conspirator that violated their agreement. One executive, Vick Nam Hing Ma, was arrested in France, and his extradition to the United States is pending. The remaining six executives have not been arrested.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Arrests Defense Contractors for Bribery and Fraud Conspiracy

On May 20, 2026, the DOJ announced criminal charges against two defendants, Leonard Pick and Brian Kent, for bribery, major fraud against the United States, and conspiracy to commit bribery and major fraud. The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to bribe a U.S. Army employee with approximately $1.25 million over five years and fraudulently inflated government contracting costs to include the U.S. Army employee’s bribe payments. The indictment further alleges that, from approximately September 2020, up to and including October 2022, defendant Kent further defrauded the government by inflating government contract costs to include approximately $680,000 in payments intended for and sent to Kent’s personal consulting business.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Announces Commitment From Bayer to Modify Seed Loyalty Program

On May 20, 2026, the DOJ announced that Bayer CropScience LLC committed to maintaining changes it had previously made to its “Premier Performance Program” loyalty program. First, Bayer’s Premier Performance Program previously required independent seed companies to meet sales targets for both corn and soybean to achieve discounts under its loyalty program. Bayer committed to not reinstate the requirement for seven years. Second, the Premier Performance Program formerly included incentives that DOJ asserted could limit independent seed companies’ willingness to license technology from Bayer’s competitors. In response to DOJ’s concerns, Bayer has committed to not reinstate these incentives, or any substantially similar incentive program, for seven years.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Requires Taiheiyo Cement Corporation and CalPortland Company to Divest Assets in Acquisition of Ready-Mix Concrete Assets From Vulcan Materials Company

On May 21, 2026, the DOJ announced a proposed settlement with Taiheiyo Cement Corporation and its subsidiary CalPortland Company to divest three ready-mix concrete plants along with related assets to address antitrust concerns arising from CalPortland’s proposed $712 million acquisition of ready-mix concrete assets from Vulcan Materials Company. The proposed settlement resolves concerns that the transaction would likely cause higher prices, lower quality, and less favorable terms for buyers of ready-mix concrete in San Diego County, where it is used in home construction, commercial construction, and infrastructure projects.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Complaint
• Read the Proposed Settlement

DOJ Secures Guilty Plea in Healthcare-Related Bid Rigging Case

On June 2, 2026, the DOJ announced that it secured a guilty plea in its case against defendant Scott Srodes for rigging bids in the sale of shelving and storage products to the U.S. Air Force to service multiple healthcare and operations facilities. The defendant admitted to submitting collusive bids for multiple projects at healthcare facilities. According to the guilty plea, he and his co-conspirators exchanged pricing information prior to submitting them, at times instructing each other exactly what price to quote for certain projects. The guilty plea was the second in the DOJ’s ongoing investigation into bid rigging and fraud impacting U.S. military facilities.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Issues Statement in Connection With the Closing of its Investigation of the Proposed Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance

On June 12, 2026, the DOJ issued a statement in connection with the closing of its investigation of the proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance. The DOJ stated that it does not intend to challenge the transaction as it is not likely to result in harm to competition, including with respect to: (1) streaming video on demand; (2) linear television; and (3) studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release. The DOJ described these markets as highly dynamic and stated that the transaction’s impact would be to increase competition across the media and entertainment ecosystem.

Regarding streaming video on demand, the DOJ noted that the acquisition was likely to increase competition because it would allow the post-merger company to more effectively coordinate its current offerings of Paramount+, discovery+, and HBO Max to compete with Netflix and the other largest streaming services. Regarding linear television, the DOJ concluded that the acquisition did not threaten competition because linear television already faces significant competition from streaming services for live programming such as sports rights and news. Regarding studio development, the DOJ concluded that non-legacy studios, including NEON, A24, and Blumhouse, demonstrate that the film development industry is dynamic, thus adequately incentivizing the post-acquisition company to continue to generate new content.

Several State Attorneys General continue to have active investigations into the proposed acquisition under state and federal antitrust laws.

• Read the Statement 

DOJ Secures Guilty Plea From Intelligence Community Contractor

On June 12, 2026, the DOJ announced that it secured the guilty plea of defendant David Duggin, a former intelligence community contractor, accused of soliciting and accepting illegal kickbacks. According to the guilty plea, the defendant and his co-conspirators used the defendant’s on-site access to sensitive information at an intelligence agency to illegally obtain government contracts for millions of dollars of hardware and software.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Requires OhioHealth to Stop Using Healthcare Contract Terms That Raise Costs for Ohio Patients

On June 16, 2026, the DOJ announced a proposed settlement with OhioHealth Corporation, resolving its pending civil litigation. The DOJ alleged that OhioHealth used its market power to enact contractual restrictions that encumber or fully preclude insurers from offering budget-conscious health insurance plans or plan features. The proposed settlement seeks to void OhioHealth’s existing contract provisions that prohibit or deter insurers from offering innovative and budget-conscious health insurance plans or plan features and prevent OhioHealth from seeking or obtaining such contract provisions in the future and from penalizing health insurers offering budget-conscious health insurance plans. The proposed settlement would also appoint a compliance monitor to ensure compliance with the settlement’s conditions.

• Read the Press Release 

Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, Allowing the President to Remove FTC Commissioners

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, allowing President Trump to remove Former Commissioner Slaughter from her position as FTC commissioner and invalidating the statutory protections from removal for FTC commissioners. On March 18, 2025, President Trump ordered the dismissal of Democratic FTC commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter. Former Commissioner Slaughter sued in federal court in the District of Columbia, where she obtained an injunction on summary judgment ordering her reinstatement. The Supreme Court issued a stay of the injunction in September, before hearing oral arguments and ultimately allowing President Trump to remove Former Commissioner Slaughter. The Court held that statutory removal protections for executive officers violate the separation of powers, which requires the president to have the unfettered authority to remove executive officers from their positions at will.

• Read the Decision

DOJ Announces Proposed Settlement With Egg Producers

On June 30, 2026, the DOJ announced proposed settlements in its case against Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Hickman’s Egg Ranch Inc., and Centrum Valley Holdings LLC. According to the DOJ, the defendants coordinated on egg spot market bidding decisions with the goal of raising daily price quotations for eggs. The proposed settlement prohibits the defendants from communicating with competitors regarding bidding prices or strategies.

• Read the Press Release
• Read the Complaint 
• Read the Proposed Final Judgment (Cal-Maine)
• Read the Stipulation and Order (Cal-Maine) 

FTC Policy

FTC Supports Proposed Repeal of Certificate of Need Requirements

On April 2, 2026, the FTC released a letter of advocacy to Tennessee legislators, urging them not to repeal a Certificate of Public Advantage (COPA) that provides state regulatory oversight for Ballad Health. In it, they took the position that repealing the COPA in the absence of a competing healthcare system would enable a monopolist to exercise substantial market power unconstrained by state regulatory oversight.

• Read the Press Release

DOJ Policy

DOJ Approves Department of Energy Defense Production Act Consortium’s Updated Voluntary Agreement

On April 23, 2026, the DOJ approved the U.S. Department of Energy Defense Production Act Consortium’s Updated Voluntary Agreement. The agreement authorizes industry to enter into agreements necessary to meet national defense requirements. There is a limited antitrust defense available for actions taken to develop or carry out these approved agreements.

• Read the Press Release 

Interagency Initiatives

DOJ and FTC Extend Deadline for Public Comment on Guidance on Business Collaborations

On April 17, 2026, the DOJ and FTC extended the comment period deadline for their inquiry on consideration of guidance on collaborations among competitors from April 24, 2026 to May 21, 2026.

• Read the Press Release

FTC and DOJ Oppose ABA Law School Accreditation

On May 1, 2026, the FTC and DOJ released a letter, joined by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, urging the Tennessee Supreme Court to reduce its reliance on the American Bar Association (ABA) in determining which law schools provide sufficient education for their graduates to take the Tennessee bar examination. The FTC and DOJ took the position that solely allowing the ABA to handle accreditation drives up the cost of legal education, thereby limiting the supply of lawyers.

• Read the FTC Press Release 
• Read the Letter

FTC Speeches and Statements

Chief of Staff and Attorney Advisor for Competition to Commissioner Meador Daniel Graulich Delivers Remarks at the Informa Connect Antitrust West Coast Conference

On May 14, 2026, Daniel Graulich, Chief of Staff and Attorney Advisor for Competition to FTC Commissioner Meador, delivered a keynote address at the Informa Connect Antitrust West Coast Conference about a “functional approach” to antitrust enforcement and compliance. Graulich also drew a close parallel between the work of compliance teams and enforcement officials, arguing that both are fundamentally concerned with understanding the intent motivating business strategy through a holistic, fact-driven approach, and closed with four practical takeaways: that antitrust risk concentrates where market position, relationships, and strategic objectives intersect; that antitrust analysis looks to substance over form; that conduct is not evaluated in isolation but as part of an overall course of dealing; and that a contextual approach anchored in ordinary-course business documents is more effective for both compliance and enforcement.

• Read the Speech

Commissioner Mark Meador Delivers Remarks Regarding Procedural Integrity in the Merger Review Process

On May 20, 2026, FTC Commissioner Mark Meador spoke at an FTC Bureau of Competition event about litigating the fix and the importance of procedural integrity in the merger review process. Meador argued that the prior administration’s deliberate policy of refusing to engage on remedies during the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) review period produced damaging consequences: investigations became more drawn out, parties were incentivized to withhold remedy proposals for litigation, and agencies found themselves litigating transactions that had already been modified, without the investigative tools or time needed to evaluate the new terms. He traced the HSR Act’s origins to Congress’ recognition that post-hoc merger challenges were too resource-intensive to effectively prevent anticompetitive harm, and argued that the premerger review process exists to allow remedies to be designed on a complete record before consummation.

• Read the Speech

Commissioner Mark Meador Delivers Remarks Regarding the Role of Economics in Antitrust Adjudication

On June 11, 2026, FTC Commissioner Mark Meador delivered remarks on the role economics should play in antitrust adjudication. Meador argued that while economics is indispensable to antitrust, it is not a substitute for legal analysis or real-world evidence, and that theory does not displace facts, especially when models are constructed post hoc to support a litigation position. He identified three recurring judicial errors: first, the rote application of economic propositions from cases like Verizon v. Trinko as categorical rules untethered from case-specific facts, which he called “Trinko creep”; second, courts give excessive weight to technical econometric models while discounting ordinary-course documents and intent evidence that more directly reveal what conduct was designed to achieve; and third, an excessive fixation on price and output metrics that can allow facially coercive conduct such as systematic deception or conditional dealing.

• Read the Speech

DOJ Speeches and Statements

DAAG Beller Delivers Remarks at NAB Show Las Vegas

On April 20, 2026, DAAG Charlie Beller of the Antitrust Division spoke at the NAB Show in Las Vegas about federal antitrust enforcement in the evolving media landscape. He framed his remarks around two themes: first, that the DOJ’s enforcement priorities are rooted in federal interests and are designed to complement, not replace, state, private, and regulatory enforcement; and second, that technological change, including artificial intelligence (AI), requires cautious humility rather than reflexive action. On the media landscape, Beller noted that the competitive baseline for content distribution has changed fundamentally, with consumers now able to access content through broadcast, cable, satellite, streaming, and social media, and cautioned that increased choice does not eliminate the possibility of market power. On AI, Beller drew a parallel to the internet in its early years, noting that it expands tools available to creators and lowers barriers, but stressed that it is not a catch-all defense to competitive concerns and that assertions about future AI-driven competition must be grounded in evidence.

• Read the Speech

Acting AAG Assefi Delivers Remarks at Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at NYU School of Law

On May 7, 2026, Acting AAG Omeed Assefi spoke at the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy at New York University (NYU) School of Law about the Antitrust Division’s approach to merger enforcement. Assefi emphasized that the Antitrust Division’s approach is built on transparency, practicality, and precision, and noted that only 1% of HSR Act-reviewed mergers go to Second Request and the vast majority proceed without challenge. He outlined the Antitrust Division’s preference for structural remedies, citing three recent consent decrees, Constellation/Calpine, CMCO/Kito Crosby, and Reddy Ice/Arctic Glacier, as examples of targeted divestitures that resolved competitive concerns. Assefi also stressed the Antitrust Division’s willingness to litigate when necessary, pointing to past enforcement failures such as the Live Nation/Ticketmaster and Google/DoubleClick mergers as cautionary examples, and emphasized that transparent engagement from merging parties is expected throughout the review process.

• Read the Speech

Acting DAAG for Criminal Enforcement Daniel Glad Delivers Remarks at the Antitrust West Coast Conference

On May 14, 2026, Acting DAAG for Criminal Enforcement Daniel Glad spoke at the Antitrust West Coast Conference in San Francisco about algorithmic collusion and criminal antitrust enforcement. Glad argued that software does not change the rule against collusion and that algorithmic tools cannot launder anticompetitive conduct, using the RealPage consent judgment, which required the company to stop using real-time competitor pricing data, as an illustration of how civil remedies target the specific mechanics of coordination rather than banning algorithmic pricing outright. He described how the Antitrust Division’s existing investigative architecture, including the Procurement Collusion Strike Force and the new Whistleblower Rewards Program (which recently issued its first-ever $1 million payment), is well-suited to detecting algorithmic cartel conduct because automated systems leave an even more extensive digital trail than traditional conspiracies. Glad also previewed three open questions the Antitrust Division is actively analyzing regarding AI-driven pricing: what constitutes an actionable agreement when pricing is mediated by a model, where criminal intent lies when humans delegate pricing decisions to AI, and whether the per se rule applies to large language model-generated pricing arrangements.

• Read the Speech

DAAG Nicole Sarrine Delivers Remarks at the Transparency Rising 2026 National Forum

On May 19, 2026, DAAG Nicole Sarrine spoke at the Transparency Rising 2026 National Forum in New Orleans about the Antitrust Division’s healthcare enforcement priorities. Sarrine described healthcare as a top enforcement priority given rising costs for consumers, employers, and government programs, and highlighted two recent cases challenging anticompetitive contracting practices by OhioHealth and NewYork-Presbyterian, which she argued use contract restrictions to prevent insurers from offering lower-cost health plan options. She also discussed the Antitrust Division’s December 2025 settlement resolving competitive concerns in UnitedHealth’s acquisition of Amedisys and the Antitrust Division’s monitoring of pharmacy benefit manager markets.

• Read the Speech

DAAG Nicole Sarrine Delivers Remarks at R-CALF USA 2026 Annual National Convention

On June 17, 2026, DAAG Nicole Sarrine spoke at the R-CALF USA 2026 Annual National Convention in Rapid City, South Dakota about “America First” antitrust enforcement in agricultural markets. Sarrine highlighted the Antitrust Division’s enforcement action against Agri Stats, which she described as a decades-long scheme through which major chicken, turkey, and pork processors shared confidential pricing data with each other, driving up food prices for consumers. On beef markets specifically, Sarrine confirmed that the DOJ’s investigation of the “Big Four” meatpackers is underway, and encouraged ranchers and cattlemen with relevant information to contact the Antitrust Division directly.

• Read the Speech

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 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.