Competition Quarterly: 5 Trends to Watch

We are pleased to bring you the fifth edition of Competition Quarterly, with a new focus on the five key antitrust trends we are watching across the United States, Europe, and China. The Trump administration signals a departure from its predecessor in some critical areas, but emphasizes continuity in others. Meanwhile, regulators in Europe and China remain aggressive on enforcement, including in labor markets and with US companies, respectively.

United States

Trend #1: The Trump Administration Pursues Enforcement Against a Range of Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct

The Biden administration applied the antitrust laws to challenge a series of widespread business practices, including algorithmic pricing, labor market restraints, no-poach agreements, and other forms of buyer-side coordination that traditionally received less attention from antitrust enforcers. The Trump administration is not only pressing forward with these efforts, but also applying traditional antitrust theories in new contexts that were not a focal point of the Biden administration’s agenda.

While the Trump administration is actively engaged on multiple fronts, we’re highlighting here a handful of key areas that we’re watching closely:

• Criminal Wage-Fixing. In a landmark April 14 trial verdict, the DOJ Antitrust Division secured its first-ever jury conviction in a wage-fixing case. A Nevada federal jury found the owner of a home healthcare staffing company guilty of conspiring with competitors to fix the wages of home health nurses in a case brought by the Biden administration. As outlined in the updated 2025 DOJ-FTC Antitrust Guidelines for Worker Conduct, wage-fixing or no-hire agreements could expose companies and individuals to risk of criminal liability. This result is likely to only reinforce DOJ’s interest in potential wage-fixing and other labor-related violations.
• Platform Speech Restrictions. In February, the FTC solicited public comments from individual Internet users about their experiences with social media and online platforms limiting their speech. This “request for public comment” focused on concerns such as “censorship,” “demonetization,” and “shadow banning”—consistent with stated priorities of new FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and comments from Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater at her confirmation hearing. The FTC is asking users to report if they were banned or had content removed due to their viewpoints, whether they had any meaningful appeals process, and critically, whether they believe platforms coordinated their moderation policies (directly or via trade groups) or were influenced by outside pressure (advertisers, government, etc.). Whether antitrust enforcers will bring a case on the theory that collusion among platforms in moderating or limiting content from users harms the marketplace of ideas remains to be seen.
• Anticompetitive Regulations. On March 27, DOJ launched a new Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force that will “advocate for the elimination of anticompetitive state and federal laws and regulations.” One such initiative is a public “inquiry into the impact of federal regulations on competition, with the goal of identifying and reducing anticompetitive regulatory barriers” launched by the FTC on April 14. To kick off this new project, both DOJ and the FTC have invited public comment on how federal regulations “can harm competition in the American economy.”
• Algorithmic Pricing. On March 27, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater and the DOJ Antitrust Division filed a Statement of Interest in In Re Multiplan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, stating that joint use of or sharing information through a common pricing algorithm could violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. DOJ’s statement suggests the new leadership shares the previous administration’s interest in algorithmic pricing, as we discussed in prior editions of Competition Quarterly.

Trend #2: A Promise to Increase Speed, Transparency, and Certainty in Merger Reviews

In a move that surprised many, FTC Chair Ferguson announced in February 2025 that the 2023 Merger Guidelines and updated HSR rule would remain in effect, citing a need for regulatory stability. But that should not suggest that the antitrust agencies necessarily plan more of the same: Chair Ferguson opined in a recent panel that there was an obvious ideological predisposition against M&A activity in the previous administration that he does not share. He criticized the previous administration for its lack of transparency with proposed merging parties. Fellow Republican FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak also panned the prior administration’s approach to mergers, accusing it of unlawfully “forcing” parties to accept settlements.

For companies considering a transaction, Trump administration regulators have signaled that they’re aiming to provide more certainty and clarity during the review process. One significant change is an increased willingness to consider merger remedies, which were largely rejected during the previous administration. For example, AAG Slater stated that she is a “proponent of remedies in merger cases” and has a “strong bias for structural remedies.” But this doesn’t mean it’s open season on “fixes” for deals: she also cautioned that DOJ will not accept “bullshit consent decrees” that do not adequately preserve post-merger competition, citing the failed divestiture in the Hertz-Dollar Thrifty merger just over a decade ago. Antitrust enforcers in the Trump administration have also indicated that they will streamline the review process, including by using the new, more detailed HSR form to reduce the need for Second Requests and by encouraging parties to affirmatively propose remedies early in the review process.

Trend #3: But with an Emphasis on Continuity

Big changes but more of the same. Despite an overhaul to antitrust agency leadership—including the firing of two FTC Commissioners—Trump administration antitrust regulators have emphasized that routine enforcement has not been interrupted. Emma Burnham, who was recently the director of criminal enforcement at DOJ’s Antitrust Division, highlighted a “slate” of guilty pleas in United States v. Martinez (for price fixing, market allocation, and conspiracy to monopolize transmigrante services) and noted three other upcoming criminal antitrust trials in speeches at multiple antitrust conferences. She added that the agency’s new leadership “have expressed their support for ongoing, robust antitrust enforcement.” In an April 2 panel appearance, Roger Alford, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, warned that enforcers will be on watch for any anticompetitive conduct in response to new tariffs. Recently confirmed FTC Commissioner Mark Meador also argued for vigorous antitrust enforcement in a statement issued in May, writing that “conservatives should reject a laissez-faire or libertarian approach to antitrust law that inverts first principles, rejects the responsibilities of governance, and reflexively turns a blind eye to efforts to accumulate private power at any cost.”

Despite some disagreements with the Biden administration’s approach, new leadership at DOJ’s Antitrust Division and the FTC are emphasizing many of the same priorities. Continuity was a major theme of Chair Ferguson and AAG Slaughter’s “Antitrust Under Trump” panel interview, which framed antitrust as one of “very few areas in government life where there is more continuity than difference” between the Biden and Trump administrations. Chair Ferguson picked up on this theme, citing continuity and stability as the reason he voted to retain the 2023 Merger Guidelines introduced by the prior administration.

Noncompete agreements. While Chair Ferguson stood by his dissent from the Biden administration’s rule banning noncompete agreements, he also described non-compete agreements as “one of the classic common law restraints in trade,” suggesting that labor market antitrust violations will continue to be a priority for the new administration.

Big Tech. Regulators have indicated that the recent antitrust scrutiny of big tech companies will continue. DOJ has not let up in either of the major pending cases against Google: the Search case (which is currently in the remedies phase) and the Ad Tech case (where Judge Brinkema recently issued an opinion finding Google liable for monopolizing markets for certain online advertising technology). Trial in the FTC’s case accusing Meta of monopolizing the market for personal social networking services by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp began on April 14.

Europe

Trend #4: Labor market enforcement is on an upswing across Europe

European competition authorities have continued to ramp up their enforcement activity against no-poach agreements and other widespread labor market practices. On February 19, the Portuguese Competition Authority fined Inetum for entering bilateral no-poach agreements under which several companies agreed not to recruit one-another’s employees. One month later, the UK Competition and Markets Authority fined the BBC, ITV, IMG Media and BT for sharing “sensitive information” on pay rates for sports broadcasting freelancers.

While the European Commission (“EC”) has not adopted a landmark decision in this area, the EC has opened for the first time a formal investigation into a possible case of no-poach agreements and also recently carried out unannounced inspections targeting alleged no-poach agreements in the food delivery and data center construction sectors. Consistent with this increased activity, the EC issued new guidance setting out how no-poach and wage-fixing agreements will be assessed under EU competition law. The guidance clarifies that the existing legal framework allows the EC and national competition authorities to “take decisive action against” wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, noting that such agreements are anticompetitive ‘by object’ and are unlikely to be pro-competitive on balance.

Companies operating in Europe should be alerted to the risks of wage-fixing and no-poach agreements. Companies should review their HR-related practices to ensure they address any existing conduct that creates competition law risks and educate their HR employees to minimize the risk of a future infringement.

Looking to Q2, we will be closely following the EC’s continued enforcement of the Digital Markets Act, with the adoption of the first non-compliance decisions thereunder seeing Apple and Meta hit with fines of €500m and €200m respectively in April 2025.

China

Trend #5: China pursues antitrust investigations of US corporations as Sino-US trade tensions continue to escalate

Historically, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has not been keen on targeting foreign companies for investigation. Since its founding in 2018, SAMR has completed 151 monopoly agreement and abuse of dominance investigations—only five targeted foreign corporations and only one involved a US company. However, as Sino-US trade tensions continue to escalate, SAMR has made a dramatic about-face. In only the past five months, SAMR has announced investigations into three US giants: Nvidia, Google, and DuPont. And reports suggest that SAMR is also looking into aspects of Apple’s App Store fees and policies, and certain of Intel’s practices in China.

Nvidia: On December 9, SAMR announced it had opened an investigation into Nvidia alleging a potential violation of SAMR’s 2020 conditional decision approving Nvidia’s acquisition of Israeli chip designer Mellanox Technologies. This investigation was an apparent response to the US’s December 2 expansion of export control measures designed to restrict China’s access to advanced AI chips.

DuPont: On April 4, SAMR announced an investigation of DuPont. While the specific focus of the investigation remains unclear, it is reported that potential allegations may involve forced exclusivity agreements and anticompetitive bundling. SAMR raided DuPont Shanghai offices on April 4—a dramatic move because April 4 is a public holiday in China. The DuPont investigation was announced alongside a slew of other actions widely seen as responses to the Trump Administration’s April 2 announcement of a 34 percent reciprocal tariff on Chinese imports.

***

Stay tuned for continued global coverage of key developments in antitrust enforcement in our next edition of the Competition Quarterly, coming this Summer.

If you have any questions related to the topics in this Competition Quarterly, please reach out to your usual O’Melveny contact or a member of our Antitrust & Competition team.

This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Pete Herrick, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia; Julia Schiller, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York; Sergei Zaslavsky, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia and Maryland; John Gonzalez, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in California; Sheya I. Jabouin, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in New York; Adam Walker, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia; Riccardo Celli, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Brussels-Capital Region, England and Wales, and Italy; Stéphane Frank, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Brussels (Belgium) and Paris (France); Rebecca Evans an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in England and Wales; Mateusz Ryś, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in Brussels (Belgium); Philip Monaghan, an O’Melveny partner licensed to practice law in Hong Kong, England and Wales, and Ireland; Lining Shan, an O’Melveny senior legal consultant in the firm’s Beijing office; and Vivian Wang, an O’Melveny associate licensed to practice law in New York and the District of Columbia, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.

© 2025 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.