The Centre of Antitrust Policy and Enforcement in the United States

The District of Columbia (DC) is the epicentre of US antitrust law. The importance of DC’s role in antitrust enforcement is undoubtedly driven, at least in part, by the two federal regulators responsible for the enforcement of US antitrust law – the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – calling DC home. As the seat of the federal government, many of the key decisions that steer federal antitrust policy and enforcement originate in DC. These decisions influence antitrust priorities throughout the country.

To understand the pivotal role of DC in US antitrust enforcement, it is essential to first delve into the specific antitrust laws and legal framework that govern this jurisdiction.

DC’s antitrust laws and legal framework

Antitrust law in DC centres around federal antitrust law with support from the local DC Code.

The federal antitrust regime is anchored by three cornerstone statutes.

• The Sherman Act (1890) prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade (Section 1) and bans monopolisation or attempts to monopolise (Section 2). It serves as the primary tool for challenging cartels, price-fixing, and exclusionary conduct.
• The Clayton Act (1914) addresses practices that may harm competition before they fully develop. Notably, Section 7 prohibits mergers and acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition. Together with the pre-merger notification requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which is Section 7A of the Clayton Act, the federal agencies have the authority to review proposed mergers prior to close and to challenge mergers they view as anticompetitive. Additionally, Section 4 allows private parties and states to seek treble damages for antitrust violations.
• Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”, granting FTC authority to address conduct that may not squarely fall within the Sherman or Clayton Acts.

These statutes are enforced by the DOJ and FTC. State attorneys general enforce their own state antitrust laws, and private plaintiffs often bring claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and state law.

The District of Columbia Antitrust Act largely mirrors federal antitrust law with two notable additions.

• Indirect Purchaser Standing – under DC Code, Section 28-4509(b), indirect purchasers may bring claims for damages, an option not available under federal law.
• Federal Interpretation Guidance – DC Code, Section 28-4515 allows DC courts to consider federal court interpretations of federal antitrust law when construing local provisions.

The premier forum for big tech cases

For over 50 years, DC’s federal courts have been the primary forum for landmark government cases against big tech companies. The decisions in these cases reshaped the competitive landscape and, in some cases, changed the course of history.

This began in 1974, when the DOJ filed suit against AT&T in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“DC District Court”), seeking to end the company’s monopoly over telephone service. (United States v American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.D.C. 1978).) Years later, the district court in 1982 ruled in favour of the government, resulting in the largest corporate breakup in history. The decision increased competition in the telecommunications market and paved the way for smaller companies that would ultimately become the first internet providers.

In 1998, the DOJ, joined by the attorneys general from 20 states and DC, brought the first antitrust case against a technology giant. In United States v Microsoft Corp. (D.D.C. 2000), the DOJ alleged that Microsoft used its dominant position in the market for computer operating systems to block competition in the web browser market, specifically by tying its web browser, Internet Explorer, to its Windows operating system. The district court agreed and ordered that Microsoft be split in two, but its order was reversed in 2001 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”), which remanded the case for further proceedings. The case ultimately settled without breaking Microsoft up, as initially ordered. Yet the Microsoft decision continues to provide the framework for applying federal antitrust law to big tech companies. This case became the model for the DOJ’s subsequent complaints against Google, one of which was also brought in the DC District Court.

DC remains at the centre of the government’s ongoing wave of blockbuster cases against big tech companies. These cases could alter the course of innovation and competition in the tech industry, and their outcomes could affect hundreds of millions of consumers and businesses. Investigated and litigated over the course of three presidential administrations, the cases have bipartisan support driven by concerns over the companies’ market power in the technology space. The government filed two of its five cases against these big tech companies in the DC District Court, as discussed below.

United States v Google LLC (D.D.C. 2024)

The DOJ, along with the DC Attorney General and 38 states, sued Google for allegedly monopolising the search engine and search advertising markets. The complaint alleges that Google used exclusivity provisions in contracts to control the domestic search engine market. The court ruled in the DOJ’s favour in August 2024. The remedies trial concluded in May 2025, and the parties are awaiting a decision.

FTC v Meta (D.D.C. 2020)

The FTC, joined by the attorneys general of 46 states and DC, sued Meta for maintaining a monopoly in the social media market through the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC sought divestiture of these companies. The trial concluded in late May 2025, and the parties are awaiting a ruling.

A focus on labour and healthcare enforcement

Beyond big tech, the DOJ and FTC have signalled enforcement priorities in other key sectors. Two areas of focus include labour markets and healthcare. The DOJ and FTC have brought a number of notable enforcement actions in both areas in jurisdictions across the country.

In DC, on the labour market side, the DOJ recently brought an enforcement action against Activision Blizzard concerning salary caps on e-sports players and teams. (United States v Activision Blizzard, Inc. (D.D.C. 2023).) Ultimately the case settled, and under the terms of the settlement Activision agreed not to implement any upper-limit on compensation for players in professional e-sports leagues.

On the healthcare side, in September 2024, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against the nation’s three largest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and their affiliated group purchasing organisations alleging that they engaged in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that artificially raised the price of insulin, restricted access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin prices to vulnerable patients. (In the Matter of Insulin (F.T.C. 2024).) According to the FTC, the three PBMs administer 80% of all prescriptions in the United States. The case is ongoing (although temporarily stayed).

An important venue for merger review

DC is increasingly becoming a preferred venue for the federal antitrust agencies – particularly the DOJ – to litigate merger challenges and file merger consent decrees. High-profile merger cases have seen an increase in recent years as the result of FTC and DOJ strategic considerations and evolving enforcement philosophies. DC is a preferred venue because it is where the agencies are headquartered, and the agencies have familiarity with the judges, who are well-experienced with antitrust matters.

Historically, merger litigation has been spread across several federal circuits, with the 2nd, 9th, and DC Circuits playing prominent roles. The recent rise in merger cases filed in the DC District Court illustrates the DOJ’s continued reliance on the DC courts to pursue both contested litigation and consent decree settlements whenever possible. These recent actions suggest that DC will remain central to the agencies’ merger enforcement strategies in the near term.

Continuity of the 2023 Merger Guidelines

Despite the change in presidential administrations, the DOJ and FTC maintain an aggressive merger enforcement posture. Trump-appointed antitrust leaders have publicly committed to adhering to the 2023 Merger Guidelines. As FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said in a memo to FTC staff, “If merger guidelines change with every new administration, they will become largely worthless to businesses and the courts.”

The 2023 Merger Guidelines are the central framework for evaluating mergers. They mark a significant departure from the 2010 guidelines, shifting the focus back toward structural indicators of market power. Key provisions include the following.

• Thresholds for presuming harm – the guidelines presume a merger to be unlawful at lower concentration levels than the previous guidelines, including when the combined firm has over 30% market share.
• Vertical merger analysis – agencies now assess whether the merged firm can and would foreclose rivals, using a broader set of market structure and incentive factors.
• Monopoly power at 50% share – the guidelines suggest that a firm with over 50% market share may be presumed to have monopoly power.
• Additional factors – the guidelines now explicitly address labour market effects, serial acquisitions, and platform competition as factors to be considered.

The continuity of the 2023 Merger Guidelines has surprised some dealmakers who anticipated a rollback of Biden-era policies. While the current administration is expected to be more receptive to settlements, parties to strategic M&A transactions should still prepare for scrutiny regardless of the party in power and use the Guidelines as a tool for risk assessments and pre-merger planning.

A resurgence of consent decrees

One significant change with the new administration is the resurgence of consent decrees to resolve merger challenges. Whereas the previous administration disfavoured merger settlements, current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson in his statement regarding a recent merger stressed that “settlements ... must be on the table if FTC is to protect competition efficiently and as fully as its resources allow.” Likewise, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater echoed this sentiment during her confirmation hearing, stating that the DOJ may take a different approach than its predecessors when “effective and robust structural remedies can be implemented without excessively burdening the Antitrust Division’s resources.” She also emphasised that consent decrees provide transparency and allow for public comment.

Recent cases filed in the DC District Court illustrate this. In United States v Safran (2025), the DOJ resolved its review of Safran’s acquisition of RTX’s actuation and flight control business through a consent decree that included divestitures. Similarly, in United States v Keysight Technologies, Inc. (D.D.C. 2025), the DOJ accepted a structural remedy to address competitive concerns.

This shift suggests that while agencies remain committed to aggressive enforcement, they are also willing to pursue pragmatic settlements – particularly when remedies can be clearly defined and monitored.

Structural remedies take centre stage

Both the FTC and DOJ have long favoured structural remedies – ie, divestitures – over behavioural commitments. This reflects a belief that structural solutions are more durable and more likely to be effective, as well as easier to enforce.

Recent examples of cases resolved in the DC District Court include the following.

• Assa Abloy/Spectrum (2022) – the DOJ required divestitures to resolve overlaps in the hardware and home improvement markets.
• Lactalis/Kraft Heinz (2021) – the DOJ mandated the divestiture of cheese brands to preserve competition.
• Neenah/US Foundry (2022) – structural remedies were imposed to address concerns in the municipal castings market.

Merging parties should anticipate that deals involving material horizontal overlaps in concentrated industries may require divestitures to gain clearance.

Heightened scrutiny in healthcare and technology

Both the healthcare and technology sectors continue to draw close attention from antitrust enforcers. In recent years, the DOJ and FTC have brought several merger challenges in these industries, including UnitedHealth/Amedisys (2024), UnitedHealth/Change Healthcare (2022), and Illumina/Grail (2022–24) in healthcare, as well as Keysight/Spirent (2025) and HPE/Juniper (2025) in the technology space.

These cases reflect a broader enforcement trend: agencies are applying more novel theories of harm, such as innovation suppression, data access risks, and vertical foreclosure, especially in markets where technological capabilities and data control are central to competition.

Firms operating in these sectors should be prepared for heightened scrutiny, even in transactions that do not raise traditional horizontal concerns.

Implications of Illumina/Grail

One such case is Illumina/Grail, which concerned a vertical merger. The FTC originally filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the DC District Court while seeking to pursue an administrative trial in front of one of the FTC’s Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). In the case, the FTC alleged that Illumina was a dominant supplier of next-generation sequencing technology required to develop a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) system. The FTC alleged that Grail would obtain the ability and incentive to foreclose or disadvantage its rivals. Illumina and Grail succeeded in the administrative trial before the ALJ but that decision was overturned by a 4–0 decision of the Commission. Illumina/Grail appealed to the 5th Circuit which widely upheld the Commission’s Order, rejecting Illumina/Grail’s fix-it-first remedy which took the form of a long-term supply agreement. (Illumina, Inc. v FTC (5th Circuit 2023).)

The case stands as a rare example of antitrust agencies successfully blocking a vertical merger by litigating to a final decision. It also highlights the varied paths that mergers can take through DC – touching the DC District Court, then proceeding through the FTC’s administrative court system, before reaching a final disposition in the appellate courts.

Non-traditional theories of harm in traditional industries: the Penguin Random House/Simon & Schuster merger

Another merger case with a non-traditional theory of harm was the Penguin Random House/Simon & Schuster merger. While challenges to horizontal mergers are common, particularly between well-established industry players, the DOJ alleged the merging parties would gain monopsony power in the publishing industry because of the proposed combination. Buy-side merger theories of harm are infrequently explored, much less litigated, by antitrust regulators. The relevant market was limited to publishing rights for anticipated top-selling books. And while the DOJ alleged that depressed competition for bestseller bidding would have downstream consumer effects on price and quality, the most direct beneficiaries of this theory were top-selling authors – demonstrated by the DOJ’s star witness Stephen King. The DC District Court ruled in favour of the DOJ and blocked the transaction. (United States v Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGAA (D.D.C. 2021).)

MDL updates in private litigation

On the private litigation side, three large-scale antitrust multi-district litigations (MDL) (see 28 USC, Section 1407) are ongoing in DC. Two of these are part of the long-running In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C. 2007). On 24 June 2025, the defendants in these two MDLs were granted summary judgment. The decision extinguishes all the price-fixing claims in the nearly two-decade-long case that has seen multiple appeals to the DC Circuit.

In the unsealed opinion, published on 27 June 2025, Chief Judge Howell concluded that follow-the-leader conscious parallelism, without more, is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. That conclusion, while seemingly uncontroversial, may affect numerous ongoing and future litigations.

The other ongoing MDL in DC, In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation (D.D.C. 2021), may be one of the affected cases. After denial of summary judgment in 2023, non-settling defendants are moving toward trial but also sought an interlocutory appeal. Specifically, they contend that the district court erred in determining that parallel conduct alone suffices to survive summary judgment. In addition, the defendants also sought an interlocutory appeal regarding whether their forward-looking statements to investors about capacity plans may serve as evidence to infer a conspiracy.

On 9 July 2025, the defendants submitted a notice of supplemental authority, asserting that the decision in Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge supports their position that summary judgment should have been granted. If the interlocutory appeal is granted, the DC Circuit could address the requirements of a case based on parallel conduct and whether public statements to investors on topics like capacity can be seen as inappropriate signals that suggest companies are not acting independently.

In summary, DC is an important venue not just for the federal agencies, but also for private plaintiffs. The outcomes of these cases will not only shape the legal landscape within DC but also have far-reaching implications for antitrust enforcement across the United States.

Aggressive enforcement from DC’s Attorney General

State antitrust enforcers have played a prominent role in recent antitrust enforcement and litigation, with the DC Attorney General at the forefront. The office of the DC Attorney General has partnered with the DOJ on many recent antitrust cases and has also initiated antitrust cases on its own, seeking to enforce the antitrust laws in novel ways. The office of the DC Attorney General was aggressive on antitrust enforcement under former DC Attorney General Karl Racine and is continuing that posture under the current DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb. The cases brought by the DC Attorney General in recent years are consistent with increased state antitrust enforcement across the United States.

United States et al. v Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. (S.D.N.Y. 2024)

The DC Attorney General joined the DOJ and 39 other attorneys general in alleging that Live Nation and Ticketmaster maintain monopolies in ticketing, concert promotion, and amphitheater access. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in March 2025.

FTC et al. v Kroger Co. and Albertsons Companies, Inc. (D. Ore. 2024)

The DC Attorney General joined the FTC and eight states in challenging the proposed merger. In December 2024, the court granted a preliminary injunction under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, finding the merger would likely lessen competition. The companies subsequently abandoned the deal.

In a statement following the ruling, Attorney General Brian Schwalb emphasised the local impact: “This is a huge win for District residents. ... The proposed merger threatened to completely erase all competition between the Kroger-owned Harris Teeter and Albertsons-owned Safeway stores in the District.”

W.C. Smith settlement (2025)

The DC Attorney General secured over USD1 million from landlord W.C. Smith, which owns over 9,000 apartments in DC, for allegedly using RealPage’s rent-setting software to co-ordinate pricing for more than 50,000 apartment units in DC. The settlement prohibits the use of such software and mandates business practice reforms.

Apotex generic drug settlement (2025)

The DC Attorney General, together with 50 states and territories, secured preliminary approval for a USD39.1 million settlement with Apotex over alleged price-fixing in the generic drug market. The DC Attorney General has announced that DC residents who purchased certain generic drugs between 2009 and 2019 may be eligible for compensation.

Indivior Suboxone settlement (2023)

The DC Attorney General joined 41 states in securing a USD102.5 million settlement with Indivior, Inc., including USD2.3 million for DC, over allegations that the company used illegal “product hopping” to block generic competition for Suboxone, an opioid addiction treatment. The scheme allegedly inflated prices and limited access for DC residents. The settlement prohibits similar conduct and mandates future disclosures to prevent recurrence.

United States et al. v American Airlines Group Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corp. (D. Mass. 2023)

The DC Attorney General joined the DOJ and six states in challenging the Northeast Alliance between American Airlines and JetBlue. In May 2023, the court permanently blocked the agreement, finding it unlawfully reduced competition and harmed consumers. Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the ruling “a win for DC residents” and reaffirmed DC’s commitment to fair, competitive markets.