ARTICLE
12 August 2026

DOJ Withdraws Antitrust Guidance For Proxy Advisory Industry

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
The U.S. Department of Justice has withdrawn a decades-old business review letter issued to Institutional Shareholder Services, the nation's largest proxy advisor, amid growing concerns about market concentration and influence over corporate governance. This development follows state-level regulatory efforts, a Florida antitrust lawsuit, and a presidential executive order targeting the proxy advisory industry's role in promoting ESG and DEI initiatives.
United States Antitrust/Competition Law
Heather Lennox’s articles from Jones Day are most popular:
  • within Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Securities & Investment industries
Jones Day are most popular:
  • within Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and International Law topic(s)

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") has withdrawn a nearly 40-year-old business review letter ("BRL") issued to Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS"), signaling heightened antitrust scrutiny of the proxy advisory industry.

The DOJ has withdrawn the 1987 BRL issued to ISS, the largest U.S. proxy advisor. The withdrawal follows state-level efforts to regulate the proxy advisory industry, a November 2025 antitrust lawsuit by the Florida Attorney General, and President Trump's December 2025 executive order on proxy advisory firms.

At least thirteen states have proposed or enacted legislation imposing disclosure requirements or other obligations on proxy advisory firms, and others are advancing similar bills. The Florida lawsuit alleges that ISS and Glass Lewis, the largest competitor of ISS, violated Florida's antitrust and consumer protection laws by coordinating offerings that incorporated environmental, social, and governance ("ESG") and diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI") factors in voting recommendations. The executive order characterizes ISS and Glass Lewis as wielding "substantial power" to advance "politically-motivated agendas," including ESG and DEI. The order furthermore directs the Federal Trade Commission and DOJ to review state antitrust investigations into whether ISS and Glass Lewis have violated federal antitrust laws.

Under federal regulations, a BRL reflects the DOJ's assessment of a proposed business practice under the antitrust laws and its current enforcement intentions. Any person may request one. Although a BRL confers no immunity, and the DOJ may revisit its position at any time, the review provides some assurance about a practice's legality under the antitrust laws.

The 1987 BRL related to the practice by ISS of "offering advice relating to the exercise of voting rights on issues of corporate governance." The DOJ grounded the BRL in the limited scope of ISS's services in a then-nascent industry and in ISS's representation that it would not "provide advice or engage in discussions with respect to the corporate operations or business activities" of the companies it covered.

In withdrawing the BRL, the DOJ noted that proxy advising is not inherently an antitrust violation and that exercising voting rights on a proxy advisor's recommendation "does not raise antitrust concerns." Rather, the DOJ withdrew the BRL because the combined market share of ISS and Glass Lewis (exceeding 90%) permits them to wield "tremendous influence" over corporate governance at U.S. public companies. The DOJ also stated that ISS's services and practices have evolved since the BRL was issued: ISS now advises on corporate operations and provides consulting services.

Although withdrawal of the BRL does not establish that ISS has violated the antitrust laws, it may accelerate federal and state oversight of the proxy advisory industry. This heightened scrutiny may prompt proxy advisors to change their practices and ultimately to reduce their influence over shareholder voting at public companies.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More