Articles Posted in Antitrust Counseling

Articles about antitrust counseling and training.

How to Run the Antitrust HSR Process When Your CEO is Impatient

June 22, 2026 | Steve Cernak

Say you are the in-house lawyer at a big company — call it Grand Motors — and you are responsible for making sure Hart-Scott-Rodino filings are made. With some variations, this hypothetical also works if you are in-house at, say, Wolverine Investments, a private equity firm. One day, one of your corporate colleagues stops by to inform you a big deal is about to be signed. She asks how quickly you can get the HSR in.

To make the hypo a little easier, imagine she at least informed you about the deal a few weeks ago and, at that time, you convinced yourself that a filing was necessary but there were no substantive antitrust issues. Maybe that is why she did not feel a need to keep you up to date on the deal’s progress. Even so, if you have taken the steps below, you can answer your colleague’s question with a timeframe that should make her, and your CEO, happy.

Gather Information, Identify Sources

While some parts of the form and the documentary attachments are specific to each deal, many parts do not vary for deals by the same parent entity. Long before your colleague asks you about this HSR, you should have gathered a lot of the necessary information and documents and identified potential sources for some of the rest.

For example, Item 5 of the current form requires you to list the U.S. revenues of your appropriate entity for the most recent fiscal year broken down by North American Industry Classification System codes. Depending on how large and diverse Grand Motors is, that process can take some time. As soon as Grand issues its annual report shortly after the end of its fiscal year, you should obtain a copy or a link to it (you will probably need to include it in the filing) and meet with the finance folks who developed it. Some of them might understand NAICS codes and already have a helpful report for non-HSR purposes. If not, you should work with the finance folks at Grand’s HQ and at its subsidiaries to classify those revenues into NAICS codes that make sense. Then, you can drop that report into your HSR filings for the next year.

Item 6(a) requires a list of all the entities controlled by Grand Motors or the appropriate entity. It also requires a list of the minority shareholders of Grand Motors or the appropriate entity. While both of those lists can change periodically, you can still gather them now from your corporate secretary’s office. Asking for updates when you have a filing to make will be easier than creating it anew.

Obviously, the information responsive to Item 7’s overlap questions cannot be finalized until you compare NAICS codes with the other party; however, as you gather the information for Items 5 and 6 above, you can determine which subsidiaries earned U.S. revenues in which NAICS codes. That information can help you complete Item 7(b)(i). If you are really ambitious, you can even work with the right people at each subsidiary to determine in which state, or more specific geographic area, such revenues were earned so you can respond to Item 7(c), if necessary.

Documents responsive to Items 4(c) and (d) necessarily vary by transaction. Remember, these documents, very roughly, are those seen by an officer or director that discuss sales, competition, and similar topics related to this particular transaction. While you cannot collect them before knowing a filing is necessary, you can identify potential sources for some of those documents. Depending on Grand’s organization and its document habits, those sources could be someone in the board secretary’s office; the regular M&A team; administrative assistants for the top brass; and the deal lawyers like your colleague. Knowing where to look internally, before turning to third parties like bankers and the other party, will save time.

All HSR filings require someone at Grand to sign the Certification and Affidavit/Declaration. Who has the authority, and is willing, to attest to the necessary statements, often at a moment’s notice? Identify that person — and if that person is a busy officer often on the road, identify his or her assistant who can help obtain the necessary signatures.

If Grand Motors is the Acquiring Person, it will be responsible for the filing fee of between $35K and $2.46M. What level(s) of approvals are necessary for such a wire transfer and who can provide them? How long do those approvals take? Which bank will process the transfer and is the name on the bank account Grand Motors Co. or something else? Again, tracking down that information well before your colleague drops news of the signing will decrease the time to filing.

Caveats and Implicit Advice

In this hypothetical, I assumed away two large issues — even for those issues, however, there are steps you can take to speed up and improve the process. First, before you make any HSR filing, you should have some understanding of any substantive antitrust issues the transaction might create. While you cannot anticipate and evaluate every potential deal, you can and should be well aware of Grand’s products, strengths and weaknesses, and competitors. Second, the question of whether a filing is necessary varies by transaction. To be prepared for that analysis, you should have a good understanding of HSR’s various thresholds and the identity and size of Grand’s Ultimate Parent Entity.

Continue reading →

Seven Lesser-Known Antitrust Exemptions and Immunities

June 18, 2026 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott

There are a number of exemptions to and immunities from the federal antitrust laws. Some are well known, and we have written about many of them before. Jarod Bona catalogued the big ones—state-action immunity, the filed-rate doctrine, the insurance exemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the baseball exemption, the Capper-Volstead Act for agricultural cooperatives, Noerr-Pennington, the statutory and non-statutory labor exemptions, implied immunity, export trade exemptions, foreign sovereign doctrines, the FTAIA, and primary jurisdiction.

Maybe you knew about the baseball exemption. But did you know about the Coca-Cola exemption? How about the Sports Broadcasting exemption? As you might expect, Congress has carved out various immunities and exemptions—often to serve a particularly powerful constituency—and Coca-Cola (and its bottlers) and the National Football League top the list for firms that hold enough cultural sway and political capital to obtain an antitrust golden ticket.

I’m an antitrust lawyer, and even I didn’t know about the Coca-Cola exemption—until I listened to the Coca-Cola episode of Acquired. And that wasn’t even the first time Acquired had taught me about antitrust: it also taught me about the Sports Broadcasting exemption. I decided enough was enough and catalogued some more of these lesser-known antitrust exemptions so that this doesn’t happen to you, too. Some of these exemptions are narrow, some are surprisingly broad. All of them are at least interesting.

The Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act

Passed in 1934, the Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act is essentially a Capper-Volstead Act for the fishing industry. It permits associations of fishermen to collectively catch, prepare, handle, and market fish and fish products without triggering antitrust liability. Like the Capper-Valstead Act, the fishermen’s exemption covers the cooperative’s core marketing activities but does not immunize predatory conduct—using the cooperative as a vehicle to harm processors, distributors, or other non-member competitors falls outside its protection. The Act is rarely litigated, which is part of why it flies under the radar, but for commercial fishing operations structured as cooperatives, it is the primary statutory basis for coordinating output and pricing that would otherwise look like textbook horizontal price-fixing. If you advise fishing cooperatives or process antitrust complaints in that industry, it’s worth understanding the ins and outs of this exemption. If don’t deal in the fish industry, you are now well on your way to crushing your next trivia question about obscure antitrust exemptions.

The Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act

Did you know that Coca-Cola doesn’t actually make the product you know and love? Instead, it makes syrup, and it sells that syrup to independent bottlers through a licensing agreement. The bottlers mix that syrup with carbonated water and put it in a can or bottle, and then deliver it to the store where you buy it. Make no mistake, Coca-Cola tightly controls the process and this distribution model benefits Coca-Cola in myriad ways. But to make it work, Coca-Cola had to give these independents exclusive territories. And even though Coca-Cola’s distribution model had existed for decades, the FTC decided in the 1970s that it did not like it. (The agency also targeted Pepsi and its bottler network.) The FTC argued that the exclusive territorial arrangements that soft drink manufacturers used for bottler distribution violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act because they were unlawful market allocation agreements between competitors.

Congress passed the Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act in 1980 to preempt that debate by statute, expressly authorizing exclusive territorial grants in carbonated soft drink distribution—so long as the manufacturer faces substantial and effective interbrand competition from other brands. That “interbrand competition” requirement is the meaningful limitation on the exemption: if a brand faces robust competition from other soft drink brands, its exclusive territories are immunized. If the market has become so concentrated that a brand faces no real interbrand pressure, the immunity is more fragile. The Act is a notable example of Congress legislating a specific safe harbor for a single industry’s distribution structure—conduct that, in most other contexts, could be unlawful depending on the specifics of the distribution structure.

The Newspaper Preservation Act

The Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 authorizes joint operating agreements—JOAs—between competing newspapers in markets where one paper is at serious risk of financial failure. Under a JOA, two separately owned papers can merge their printing, distribution, advertising, and business operations while maintaining separate and independent editorial staffs. In antitrust terms, this is an explicit congressional authorization for competing publishers to share costs, coordinate pricing, and allocate markets in their commercial operations—conduct that would otherwise be per se illegal under the Sherman Act—so long as they seek preclearance to do so. The rationale is that two editorially independent papers sharing a back office serve the public better than one monopoly survivor. The Act requires the Attorney General to approve new JOAs, and the “probable danger of financial failure” standard is supposed to function as a real gatekeeping requirement—not a rubber stamp. The number of newspapers operating under JOAs has declined sharply as the industry has contracted, but as Pat Pascarella and I once argued, the JOA framework could still be relevant. And local news markets continue to consolidate as more and more papers go under.

The National Cooperative Research and Production Act

The National Cooperative Research and Production Act—the NCRPA—was originally enacted in 1984 as the National Cooperative Research Act and expanded in 1993 to cover production joint ventures. It does two distinct things. First, it requires that R&D and production joint ventures that file notification with the DOJ and FTC be evaluated under the rule of reason rather than the per se standard—a significant benefit given that horizontal coordination between competitors can attract fights over the application of the ancillary-restraints doctrine and possibly per se treatment. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it limits antitrust damages for qualifying ventures to actual damages rather than treble damages, even if the venture is ultimately found to have violated the antitrust laws. The notification process is not burdensome: the parties file with both agencies describing the venture’s scope and membership, and publish a summary in the Federal Register. The liability exposure drops substantially as soon as notification is filed. For technology consortia, standard-setting bodies, and any group of competitors considering pooled R&D or joint manufacturing, the NCRPA is a meaningful but often overlooked risk-reduction tool.

The Local Government Antitrust Act

The Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984—the LGAA—is distinct from, and more narrow than, state-action immunity under Parker v. Brown. State-action immunity is a complete defense: qualifying governmental conduct is simply not subject to antitrust liability. The LGAA operates differently. It does not immunize the underlying conduct; it eliminates only damages, and only for local governments and their officials. Under the LGAA, local governments and their officials acting in official capacities cannot be held liable for damages under the federal antitrust laws, even if their conduct is ultimately found to be anticompetitive. Injunctive and declaratory relief remain fully available. The practical consequence for plaintiffs is significant: before investing in antitrust litigation against a municipality or local agency, you need to assess whether injunctive relief alone justifies the cost, because treble damages—the usual engine driving private antitrust enforcement—are off the table. The LGAA damages bar can apply even when Parker immunity fails, so you want to consider both defenses in the case from the beginning.

The Shipping Act

The Shipping Act of 1984—updated by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 and amended again by OSRA 2022—creates a regime of supervised antitrust immunity for ocean carrier agreements. Under the Act, common carriers can enter into agreements fixing rates, pooling revenues, allocating cargo, and coordinating vessel capacity, provided they file those agreements with the Federal Maritime Commission. Once filed, the agreements receive antitrust immunity unless the FMC acts to reject or modify them. The immunity is not unconditional: the FMC retains authority to prohibit agreement terms that are unjustly discriminatory or unreasonably harmful to shippers, and OSRA 2022 added new requirements around transparency and service contract compliance. But the core structure—FMC-supervised horizontal coordination among ocean carriers—remains intact and immunizes conduct that would be per se illegal under the Sherman Act in virtually any other context. For shippers challenging rate coordination or capacity management practices by ocean carriers, this means the FMC regulatory process, not an antitrust lawsuit, is generally the primary available remedy.

The Sports Broadcasting Act

The baseball exemption gets most of the attention in sports-and-antitrust discussions. Baseball’s exemption is judge-made, rooted in a 1922 Supreme Court decision holding that baseball was not interstate commerce—a conclusion the Court has since acknowledged was likely wrong but kept alive on stare decisis grounds. But there is another sports exemption that applies beyond baseball: the Sports Broadcasting Act.

Continue reading →

When Loyalty Programs Become Antitrust Problems: DOJ’s Bayer Seed Investigation

June 6, 2026 | Aaron Gott

Author: Aaron Gott

Last week, the Department of Justice announced that Bayer CropScience LLC has removed two sets of potentially anticompetitive provisions from its “Premier Performance Program”—a loyalty program for independent seed companies that sell Bayer’s corn and soybean seed. The announcement came not as the result of a consent decree or court order, but as a voluntary commitment Bayer made during the course of a still-ongoing DOJ investigation.

This is an example of a company taking a hard look at the antitrust risks of its sales initiatives and deciding that the benefit was outweighed by those risks.

Ideally, companies take a hard look at their antitrust risks before they face an investigation. So let’s talk about what those antitrust risks were for Bayer.

Bayer’s Loyalty Program

The Premier Performance Program gave independent seed companies discounts in exchange for meeting sales performance targets. Two features of the program drew DOJ scrutiny.

The first problem with Bayer’s loyalty program was that it imposed a tie. To qualify for discounts, seed companies had to hit targets for *both* corn seed *and* soybean seed. That is a textbook tying arrangement: access to favorable pricing on Product A (corn) conditioned on meeting volume targets for Product B (soybeans).

The antitrust laws treat tying with real suspicion. Tying is suspicious enough, in fact, that Congress has provided the government and private plaintiffs with three different ways under which they can plead a tying claim: as an anticompetitive agreement (between supplier and customer) that violates Sherman Act Section 1; as a unilateral anticompetitive act by a supplier with monopoly power under Sherman Act Section 2; and as a conditional sales arrangement for goods under Clayton Act Section 3. While the requirements of the three different tying claims vary, a seller has antitrust risk for tying where the seller has, at a minimum, appreciable economic power in the tying product.

In a competitive, open market, buyers are free to buy the products they want from the sellers they want. With tying, a seller usurps that choice, using its power in the tying market (where it sells a product customers want) to force buyers to also buy from seller in the tied market (where it sells a product customers don’t want, or at least don’t necessarily want it from seller). As a result, competition in the second (the “tied”) market suffers—alternatives go unpurchased, rivals lose distribution, and that market concentrates around the seller. The result is that seller wins in the “tied” market for reasons other than the merits of seller’s participation in that market. And one largely unspoken principle of antitrust law is that winning for reasons other than the merits is always suspicious.

That was the DOJ’s concern with Bayer’s loyalty program. The DOJ’s announcement notes that Bayer is “the primary source for traited corn seed sold by independent seed companies.” So Bayer is a dominant supplier of traited corn seed, and its loyalty program gave discounts only if the seed company buyers also bought soybean seed from Bayer. In other words, Bayer required customers to take a second product to get favorable terms on the first. In effect, Bayer imposed a toll on corn seed buyers who did not also buy its soybean seeds.

The second problem with Bayer’s loyalty program was that it incentivized exclusivity. The program included provisions that could reduce independent seed companies’ willingness to license seed technology from Bayer’s competitors. The DOJ viewed these incentives as potentially anticompetitive because, it suspected, Bayer was using its loyalty program to foreclose rival seed technology from the distribution channel.

Exclusive dealing and its “cousins”—loyalty discounts, bundled rebates, and incentive programs that effectively limit customers’ ability to patronize competitors—are analyzed under the rule of reason. The question is whether the program forecloses a substantial share of the distribution channel to rivals. A loyalty program that financially penalizes seed companies for licensing competitors’ genetics does exactly that.

Taking a step back from these specific doctrines, the DOJ looked at Bayer’s loyalty program and saw a set of complementary, unilaterally imposed contract terms and incentive structures that functioned to foreclose competition in markets Bayer participated in by using its already substantial power rather than by competing on the merits day by day, product by product. At its core, that is what Section 2 of the Sherman Act seeks to prevent.

Lessons for Investigative Targets

Bayer eliminated both aspects of its loyalty program and has committed not to reinstate them for seven years.

It’s worth noting what Bayer’s commitment does and does not do. DOJ announced that Bayer made its commitment as a result of an “ongoing investigation” and made the changes “during the course of” that investigation. But Bayer did this voluntarily, not because it reached a consent agreement with DOJ. While DOJ will likely consider Bayer’s voluntary cessation of the conduct as a mitigating factor as it proceeds, it does not end the investigation and DOJ remains free to continue its investigation, pursue enforcement, and demand further remedies.

Still, this kind of resolution—behavioral commitments extracted through investigation pressure before DOJ undertakes formal litigation—is common in DOJ enforcement. The Division announces publicly that the conduct has changed, creates a deterrent effect across the industry, and reserves the right to continue its investigation. For Bayer, the alternative was presumably a filed case or a consent decree with more constraining terms. For the DOJ, it is an efficient way to change conduct quickly without committing the resources required for litigation while maintaining full flexibility and discretion going forward —not to mention the ever-present, implicit threat of exercising that discretion to maximum effect.

Also trending in DOJ enforcement? Agribusiness. Bayer is not the first agribusiness to draw this kind of DOJ scrutiny in recent years, and it is unlikely to be the last. Agricultural input markets—seeds, chemicals, equipment—are concentrated and have been under increased enforcement attention since the DOJ and USDA signed their 2025 memorandum of understanding on agricultural competition. Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi said it plainly: “Enforcement in agriculture is a top priority for the Antitrust Division.” And that’s to say nothing of state antitrust enforcers, some of whom have also made conduct and concentration in agriculture a chief priority.

Lessons for Loyalty Programs

Ideally, your company will not become an investigative target because of its loyalty programs in the first place. Loyalty programs create risks that can be managed—and assessed against their benefits. A few questions are worth asking to start:

Continue reading →

Key Takeaways from the 2026 ABA Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting

March 31, 2026 | Bona Law PC, Steve Cernak, Luis Blanquez, Cansu Gunel and Sabri Siraj

Authors: Steven Cernak, Luis Blanquez, Cansu Gunel, Sabri Siraj

Bona Law was well represented at the annual largest antitrust conference, the 2026 American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C. Steve Cernak spoke at a panel discussing Robinson-Patman and other issues with big companies; Cansu Gunel attended the Section’s inaugural Trial Skills Academy; and Luis Blanquez and Sabri Siraj attended many panels and led our Bona Law meetings with clients and other firms. With dozens of panels and countless opportunities to meet with friends old and new from nearly 70 different countries, each of us could write an entire post on what we learned last week; however, to keep the length manageable, we each limited ourselves to just the key takeaways for our readers.

Steve Cernak

Continue reading →

Update: Is it Time for Antitrust Lawyers and Private Equity Clients to Pay Attention to Interlocking Directorates and Section 8 of the Clayton Act? The Answer is Still Yes

November 11, 2025 | Steve Cernak and Luis Blanquez

Authors: Steven Cernak and Luis Blanquez

Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits certain interlocking directorates between competing corporations. But while the prohibition has been around since 1914, most antitrust lawyers pay little attention to it, partly because companies can quickly resolve any issues voluntarily.

We first brought Section 8 to the attention of our readers in 2022 because of comments by then-AAG Jonathan Kanter. Even more recent actions by the agencies, detailed below, plus the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act’s new requirements under the updated filing form—soliciting information on overlapping directorates—should be enough for everyone to keep a closer eye on the issue, in particular private equity firms.

Clayton Act, Section 8 Basics

The prohibitions of Section 8, in its most recent form, can be simply stated: No person can simultaneously serve as an officer or director of competing corporations, subject to certain jurisdictional thresholds and de minimis exceptions. Truly understanding the prohibition, however, requires understanding all those italicized terms.

First, Section 8’s prohibition applies only if each corporation has “capital, surplus, and undivided profits,” or net worth, of $10M or more, as adjusted. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for annually adjusting that threshold for growth in the economy. Currently, for 2025, the thresholds are $51.380 million for Section 8(a)(1) and $5.138 million for Section 8(a)(2)(A). These new thresholds took effect on February 21, 2025.

Section 8 provides an exception where the competitive sales of either or each of the corporations is de minimis. Specifically for 2025, no interlocks are prohibited if (1) both of the entities have capital, surplus and undivided profits of $51,380,000 or less, or the competitive sales of either entity are less than $5,138,000; 2) the competitive sales of either corporation are less than 2% of that corporation’s total sales; or 3) the competitive sales of each corporation are less than 4% of that corporation’s total sales.

Originally, Section 8 applied only to directors of corporations; however, the 1990 amendments extended the coverage to officers, defined as those elected or chosen by the corporation’s Board. Despite the clear wording of the statute limiting it to officers and directors, some courts have considered the possibility that Section 8 might apply when a corporation’s non-officer employee was to be appointed a director of a competitor corporation.

The language of Section 8 clearly applies to interlocks between competing corporations. An interlock between a corporation and a competing LLC would not be covered by the statutory language or the legislative history of the original statute or amendment. The FTC and DOJ have not explicitly weighed in on application to non-corporations, although the FTC’s implementing regulations for Hart-Scott-Rodino cover LLC explicitly as “non-corporate interests” different from corporations. Still, the spirit of Section 8 would seem to cover any such non-corporate interlock. Also, any corporate director who also serves a similar role for a competing LLC would face an increased risk of violating Sherman Act Section 1.

Section 8 clearly applies if the same natural person sits on the boards of the competing corporations. It might also apply if the same legal entity has the right to appoint a natural person to both Boards, even if that entity appoints two different natural persons to the two Boards. That interpretation is consistent with the Clayton Act’s broad definition of “person” and has been supported by both the FTC and DOJ and the one lower court to consider the question.

As with other parts of the antitrust laws, the question of competition between the two corporations requires some analysis. The few courts to look at the question have held that corporations that could be found to violate Sherman Act Section 1 through an agreement would be considered competitors. On the other hand, these same courts did not define competitors more narrowly to be those corporations that would not be allowed to merge under the more extensive analysis of Clayton Act Section 7.

Recent DOJ and FTC Action

The DOJ has traditionally enforced Section 8’s prohibition on interlocking directorates, which has become a priority under the current Administration.

As a result, there have recently been an increasing number of instances where directors have resigned to resolve DOJ concerns.

In April 2024, two directors from Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. (WBD)–– Steven A. Miron and Steven O. Newhouse––resigned from the WBD board after the Antitrust Division expressed concerns that their positions on both the WBD and Charter Communications Inc. boards potentially violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Charter, with its Spectrum cable service, and WBD, through its Max streaming subscription services, both provide video distribution services to customers. The division’s enforcement efforts to date have unwound or prevented interlocks involving at least two dozen companies.

More recently, in September 2025, the FTC found that Sevita and Beacon Specialized Living Services, Inc.—both owned by private equity investors and providers of services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities—had overlapping board members, violating Section 8 of the Clayton Act. As a result, three directors resigned from the board of Sevita Health following FTC enforcement actions. The FTC didn’t engage in any formal legal action against the companies, and the resignations were enough to resolve the FTC’s competition concerns without further legal action.

Recent DOJ Speeches

The DOJ action that led to the resignations is consistent with recent speeches by DOJ officials

In 2022, Jonathan Kanter, former assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division at the DOJ, made some significant remarks about Section 8. First, he highlighted the fact that the Division is committed to litigating cases using the whole legislative toolbox that Congress has given them to promote competition, including Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Second, he reminded everyone that Section 8 helps prevent collusion before it can occur by imposing a bright-line rule against interlocking directorates. Third, that for too long, Section 8 enforcement has essentially been limited to their merger review process. And last but not least, that the Division will start ramping up efforts to identify violations across the broader economy and will not hesitate to bring Section 8 cases to break up interlocking directorates. Another former head from the FTC made a similar statement back in 2019, indicating how Section 8 of the Clayton Act protects against potential information sharing and coordination by prohibiting an individual from serving as an officer or director of two competing companies.

Continue reading →

Understanding Antitrust Scrutiny: Lessons from United States v. American Airlines and JetBlue

December 16, 2024 | Sabri Siraj

Author: Sabri Siraj

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a district court ruling to permanently enjoin the Northeast Alliance (NEA) between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways. This case offers key insights into the relationship between joint ventures and antitrust and the standards of review for evaluating competitive harm.

Airline Case Summary

Defendants presented NEA as a collaborative effort between American Airlines and JetBlue to streamline services, enhance route options, and compete more effectively in the Northeast region of the U.S. Specifically, the arrangement allowed the two carriers to coordinate schedules, pool revenue, and integrate operations in select markets. The airlines argued that the NEA would create efficiencies that would benefit consumers through improved services and better connectivity. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several state attorneys general challenged the agreement, asserting that it undermined competition, raised ticket prices, and reduced consumer choice.

The district court’s findings supported the DOJ and the States, concluding that the NEA’s anticompetitive effects far outweighed any claimed benefits. The court held that the alliance reduced output in critical markets and failed to generate meaningful procompetitive benefits that could not be achieved through less restrictive means. On appeal, American Airlines argued that the NEA deserved lenient antitrust scrutiny because it is a joint venture. The First Circuit, however, rejected that defense, emphasizing that the legality of such arrangements hinge on their substance and actual effects rather than their label.

Antitrust Issues and Decision

This case serves as a critical examination of the standards applied to joint ventures under antitrust law. Joint ventures, when properly structured, can foster innovation, enhance efficiencies, and deliver consumer benefits by pooling resources and expertise. But these benefits do not exempt joint ventures from antitrust scrutiny. The First Circuit’s ruling focused on three key principles:

First, the court emphasized the importance of substance over form. It rejected American Airlines’ argument that the NEA’s classification as a joint venture warranted less rigorous analysis. As the court noted, “One could describe price fixing as a joint venture,” highlighting that the label itself does not insulate an arrangement from scrutiny. The court’s inquiry focused instead on the practical implications of the NEA, particularly its impact on competition and consumer welfare.

Second, the court applied the rule-of-reason framework to evaluate the NEA’s competitive effects. This standard requires a detailed analysis of the agreement’s purpose, its potential procompetitive justifications, and its actual anticompetitive effects. Here, the NEA failed to demonstrate sufficient procompetitive benefits to offset its negative impact on competition. The court agreed with the district court’s finding that the alliance reduced output and increased prices in key markets, with no evidence of justifying efficiencies.

Finally, the decision reinforced longstanding antitrust principles requiring genuine economic integration in joint ventures. The court found that the NEA lacked the necessary integration of resources and operations to qualify as a legitimate joint venture. Instead, it functioned as a mechanism to coordinate behavior between two major competitors, effectively reducing competition without delivering substantial consumer benefits.

The Broader Implications of the Ruling

The First Circuit’s decision has significant implications for businesses and legal practitioners navigating antitrust issues. For companies considering joint ventures or similar collaborations, the ruling serves as a reminder that such arrangements must be carefully structured to withstand legal scrutiny. A legitimate joint venture should integrate resources and create new or improved products or services that enhance market competition. Agreements that merely coordinate behavior between or among competitors without achieving these objectives are unlikely to survive antitrust challenges.

Additionally, the case underscores that businesses should proactively address potential antitrust risks during the joint venture’s planning and formation. This includes consulting with antitrust counsel, conducting thorough market analyses, and ensuring that any restrictions are ancillary to the venture’s objectives and proportional to achieving its goals. Companies should also document the procompetitive benefits of their agreements, providing clear evidence to support their claims if challenged.

Insights for Practitioners

The NEA case highlights why antitrust attorneys tailor legal advice to the specific facts and context of each arrangement. Joint ventures remain a common strategic tool for businesses seeking to innovate or expand their market presence. But, as this case illustrates, not all joint ventures are created equal. To withstand antitrust scrutiny, an arrangement must demonstrate genuine economic integration and clear consumer benefits.

Continue reading →

The FTC has Algorithmic Price-Fixing in its Antitrust Crosshairs

May 20, 2024 | Luis Blanquez

Author: Luis Blanquez

Are you delegating your pricing decisions to a common algorithm software platform? If so, you might violate the antitrust laws. It may not even matter whether you actually communicated with your competitors. All it might take is for the antitrust agencies—The Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission—to allege illegal collusion is the use by your company of an algorithm-software tool trained using competitively sensitive data, with knowledge that some of your competitors are doing the same thing. Even deviation from the algorithm’s recommended pricing might not save you from antitrust liability.

The FTC’s Blog Post: Price Fixing by Algorithm is Still Price Fixing

On March 1, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a blog post explaining how relying on a common algorithm to determine your pricing decisions might violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In the blog post, the FTC includes a previous Statement of Interest (“SOI”) filed in the Duffy v. Yardi Systems, Inc. case to explain the legal principles applicable to claims of algorithmic price fixing. First, price fixing through an algorithm is still price fixing. Second: (1) you can’t use an algorithm to evade the law banning price-fixing agreements, and (2) an agreement to use shared pricing recommendations, lists, calculations, or algorithms can still be unlawful even where co-conspirators retain some pricing discretion or cheat on the agreement.

The blog concludes with two important remarks:

“Agreeing to use an algorithm is an agreement. In algorithmic collusion, a pricing algorithm combines competitor data and spits out the suggested “maximized” rent for a unit given local conditions. Such software can allow landlords to collude on pricing by using an algorithm—something the law doesn’t allow IRL. When you replace once-independent pricing decisions with a shared algorithm, expect trouble. Competitors using a shared human agent to fix prices? Illegal. Doing the same thing but with an agreed upon, shared algorithm? Still illegal. It’s also irrelevant that the algorithm maker isn’t a direct competitor if you and your competitors each agree to use their product knowing the others are doing the same in concert.
Price deviations don’t immunize conspirators. Some things in life might require perfection, but price-fixing arrangements aren’t one of them. Just because a software recommends rather than determines a price doesn’t mean it’s legal. Setting initial starting prices or recommending initial starting prices can be illegal, even if conspirators deviate from recommended prices. And even if some of the conspirators cheat by starting with lower prices than those the algorithm recommended, that doesn’t necessarily change things. Being bad at breaking the law isn’t a defense.”

This is a bold statement from the FTC. Algorithmic collusion is not only on the agency’s radar now, but it is also one of its priorities.

Final Conclusions

Algorithm collusion is on the crosshairs of the FTC and DOJ, so expect more cases soon. And not only in the real-estate industry, as highlighted from existing investigations on the online retailing and meat processing industries. Indeed, it is becoming common practice for more industries and businesses to implement and rely on algorithms to set their pricing strategies.

Continue reading →

If I Were You…I’d Listen to this Podcast about Residential Real Estate & Antitrust

April 4, 2024 | Molly Donovan and Aaron Gott

Author: Molly Donovan & Aaron Gott

This Episode Is About: Residential Real Estate and Antitrust

Why: A settlement has been reached between the National Association of Realtors (or NAR) and the class action plaintiffs that would resolve the $1.8 billion verdict out of Missouri finding illegal collusion in the residential real estate industry. But the settlement raises its own antitrust concerns and this podcast provides actionable guidance for avoiding them. You can listen to this podcast here.

Some Background: The Missouri case focused on the NAR’s mandatory commission rule requiring the home seller to pay a non-negotiable commission to the broker representing the buyer. Plaintiffs alleged this resulted in a complete lack of competition for buy-side rates—which were artificially inflated. Before this lawsuit and copycat suits, virtually all brokerages in the industry operated under the rule and were aware that everybody else was operating in the same way.

But under the settlement, the NAR has agreed to implement a new rule prohibiting offers of buy-side compensation to be posted on the MLS (or multiple listing service, where most homes are listed for sale). Individual brokers can pursue buy-side commissions, but only off the MLS through negotiations. Assuming the settlement is approved, this change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.

Here’s what brokerages and local real estate associations need to know:

Bullet #1: Collusion often takes place after major industry disruptions like this one. Competitors panic and seek comfort in knowing how others in the industry plan to cope – we could call them “crisis cartels.” In this case, brokerages who are supposed to be competing should not discuss with one another how they plan to react to the eradication of the mandatory commission rule. Each brokerage should determine by itself how it will compete, what commissions it will seek, and from whom.

Bullet #2: Brokerages need to ensure that there isn’t a reversion back to a de facto mandatory commission rule. While some commentary suggests that disclosing to sellers and buyers that commissions are negotiable may be enough, we think that, in addition to disclosures, there must be an accessible process that prompts and facilitates bona fide arms-length negotiations over commissions. Commission negotiations should not be discouraged in any way. Disclosures to home sellers and buyers that commissions are negotiable should be understandable, easy to find and accompanied by an explanation of the actual process for negotiating.

Bullet #3: Buy-side commissions should be commensurate with the “value add” brought by the buy-side broker. This may require detaching the buy-side commission from the sale price of the home and documenting the rationale behind the final rate chosen. This shows that the rate is competitive and not an “industry-standard” or “fixed” commission.

Bullet #4: No steering. Buy-side brokers should present to clients, equally and fairly, all homes that fall within their specifications. And conversely, sale-side brokers should treat all offers equally notwithstanding commissions. Brokerages must be careful not to steer clients towards dealing with other brokerages that are known to “cooperate” with respect to commission sharing, and must not steer clients away from dealing with brokerages that are “uncooperative,” i.e., taking a unique approach to competition for clients.

Continue reading →

Best Practices for Merger Reviews before the Federal Agencies and the California Attorney General’s Office

February 5, 2024 | Paul Moore

Author: Paul Moore²

Introduction

Over the past several decades State Attorneys General have become increasingly involved in merger reviews in tandem with the Federal Trade Commission and/or the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (the Regulatory Agencies). This increase in state merger reviews has been in parallel with states raising their merger and non-merger profile and general antitrust enforcement efforts statewide and nationally. This trend has occurred, in part, as Attorneys General expanded their staffs and have become increasingly experienced in antitrust enforcement efforts and merger analysis. While many states, including California, do not have statutes mandating proposed merger registration, Attorneys General have statutory authority to investigate conduct to ensure no laws have been violated³. This means that an Attorney General can decide to review a proposed merger whenever they think it may violate a state’s antitrust laws. Therefore, it makes sense to notify an Attorney General when a proposed merger may have a competitive impact in a specific state and is likely to trigger an in-depth analysis at the federal level. Some examples might be a merger between two competitors who have substantial overlapping retailing assets, service routes, or service areas in one state. Such a notification to a state allows parties to avoid duplicative and possibly successive investigations. Best practices have emerged around how to conduct a merger investigation with a Regulatory Agency and tandem with the California Attorney General’s office.

Best Practices When Cooperating with Staff

Contacting the federal agency likely to review a transaction before submitting an HSR filing is increasingly becoming part of merger review practice. Since there is no statutory requirement to seek regulatory authority to merge at the state level in California a best practice is to invite the Attorney General to participate in the review process to avoid subsequent investigations that could have been run in parallel with other agencies and possibly avoid efforts by the staff ex-post to unwind a transaction⁴. Contacting the California Attorney General (Cal-AG) before an HSR is filed is generally well-received by staff and is typically considered a smart strategy because it allows the staff assigned to the transaction the ability to begin reviewing the transaction before the 30-day statutory clock has started. This extra time allows staff more time to conduct a review before any enforcement decisions need to be made and in some cases provides the time necessary to avoid one altogether. In addition, a pre-filing notification to both staffs permits the two agencies to interact freely since there is no HSR confidence to maintain.

We are in an era where many meetings are conducted over video. Generally, saving time and client resources is a good thing; however, visiting a State Attorney General’s staff in their office at the beginning of a merger can pay significant dividends. An in-person visit can establish the foundation for a positive working relationship, allow for clear communications⁵ and most importantly, communicate to the staff and Attorney General that you are aware of the importance of their involvement and welcome their participation. The in-person visit makes a significant first-step in ensuring that things start off on the right foot.

Once the HSR is submitted, the Cal-AG is able to file her Form 712 and to continue the interagency dialogue with the benefit of the documents and filings the parties have made. The Cal-AG’s staff can also begin to reach out to third parties and seek waivers that permit the FTC/DOJ to share what is produced with the states. This is more efficient for the producing parties as well, as they can make what amounts to a single production to satisfy both reviewing agencies⁶. Securing these waivers early in the process also allows the staffs to communicate freely, to share economic analyses based on produced information, and for the CAL-AG staff to join party meetings with the FTC/DOJ⁷. This level of cooperation benefits all involved as it prevents parties from making the same presentation twice and it allows both regulatory agencies to hear the same information simultaneously.

Continue reading →

Did You Receive an FTC or DOJ Subpoena? Be Sure To Preserve Everything Ephemeral

February 2, 2024 | Steve Cernak and Molly Donovan

Authors: Steven Cernak & Molly Donovan

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are reminding companies that, in responding to grand jury subpoenas and second requests, there is an obligation to preserve data and communications created using “new methods of collaboration and information sharing tools, even including tools that allow for messages to disappear via ephemeral messaging capabilities.” The government has specifically called out Slack, Microsoft Teams and Signal as being some of the applications of concern “designed to hide evidence.”

The government says that while there has always been an obligation to produce information from ephemeral messaging applications in investigations and litigations, the purpose of the reminder is to ensure that counsel and clients do not “feign ignorance” when choosing to use ephemeral messaging to do business. Thus, the FTC and DOJ will include new, explicit language in subpoenas and other requests specifically stating that data from ephemeral messaging applications must be preserved. A failure to meet that obligation could result in obstruction of justice charges.

More generally, once a company has been served with a subpoena, a document hold should be prepared and circulated right away. A document hold is a written notification to relevant employees not to delete, destroy or alter any electronic or paper materials potentially relevant to the subpoena. The notice must unpack what that language means in plain English and should be conservative in describing what “potentially relevant” means—(remember that just because something is being preserved does not necessarily mean it will have to be produced.)

The document hold should apply to all types of messaging (text, IM, DMs, ephemeral) to ensure that all existing and going-forward materials will not be deleted. The relevant persons with IT expertise should certify internally that preservation is occurring effectively, that all auto-delete functions have been turned off, and that back-up tapes are not being purged automatically.

It’s also a good idea to instruct employees not to talk to each other about the subpoena or the underlying subject matter. When employees talk to each other, it can create the appearance of collusion—i.e., employees are coordinating with each other about what to say or not say to the lawyers or to the government. This can raise obstruction suspicions that may only grow if the discussions occur over ephemeral messaging applications that employees think will not leave a paper trail behind.

If employees believe that they or others have violated, or behaved inconsistently with, company policies or relevant laws, employees should discuss that only with in-house or outside counsel—not with each other.

Continue reading →