Heard At The 2026 Antitrust Law Section Spring Meeting

The American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section’s annual Spring Meeting took place from March 25 – 27, 2026, in Washington, DC, this year. The Spring Meeting features updates from federal, state, and international antitrust enforcers as well as extensive discussion of antitrust issues and enforcement priorities affecting various industries. This client alert highlights key takeaways from the Spring Meeting.

In Depth

Antitrust and the Trump 2.0 administration: One year later

• The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have explicitly stated that they are not independent from the White House, embracing the top-down unitary executive theory of antitrust enforcement. Presidential priorities will continue to guide the focus of the antitrust agencies’ enforcement actions and litigation.
• Over the past year, the administration’s pro-business agenda has been furthered by the antitrust agencies. The agencies seek to reduce barriers to entry for transactions caused by regulations that affect market behavior. The agencies are also more willing to engage in settlements with structural and behavioral remedies.
• The new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules have recently been struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The agencies have expressed a desire to maintain both the new HSR rules and the 2023 merger guidelines despite the fact that both policies were established by the previous administration. Practitioners suggest that in maintaining the new guidelines and rules, the FTC may be playing defense to make it more difficult for future agency actions to be challenged.

Here to stay: Scrutiny of labor, private equity, minority shareholders

• Anticompetitive labor practices, including no-poach and wage-fixing schemes, continue to face increased scrutiny from US and European regulators and courts. Some jurisdictions like Canada have even updated their laws to more explicitly pursue labor market cases, as many Canadian companies are still unaware of the problematic nature of some noncompetes. American noncompetes continue to attract scrutiny.
• Though private equity (PE) no longer garners the same amount of public criticism from the agencies as it did during Lina Khan’s tenure at the FTC, the private equity business model continues to pose concerns, particularly around affordability in healthcare and housing. The FTC has investigated several PE-backed healthcare transactions, and states are enacting premerger notification statutes aimed, in part, at private equity investment in healthcare and housing. Private equity investors should be aware of this developing body of state law that may impact transaction timelines and risk.
• The current administration continues to develop an enforcement interest in minority ownership. In response, practitioners are exploring solutions for minority investors concerned about antitrust scrutiny, including contracting away corporate government rights while maintaining economic rights in the investment.

Antitrust and AI

• Practitioners expressed concerns that traditional antitrust tools are not well suited to address modern forms of consolidation, and artificial intelligence (AI) has created a gap in antitrust enforcement. Certain agreements among AI and tech companies fall outside of traditional scrutiny under the Clayton and HSR acts, such as “acquihires” (instead of buying a company outright, a buyer will hire a key person from the target and license intellectual property (IP) from that company) and nonexclusive licensing. Nonetheless, the US agencies have expressed an interest in investigating such agreements.
• US monopolization theories are difficult to enforce due to the nascent nature of AI. Agencies struggle to define AI and how AI tools impact the market. That said, unlawful conduct by an AI would be illegal if, done by a human, it was unlawful as well. This leads to questions around whether information provided by AI tools could be considered illegal information sharing if a competitor used the same tool.
• In contrast, international agencies have additional tools in their belts to pursue enforcement against AI-specific agreements. Global enforcers have shifted from discussions on regulating AI toward taking action. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)’s share of supply and material influence tests allow for review where a target may have little to no revenue or where control is more flexible than US control tests, respectively. The EU European Commission uses the Digital Markets Act to fill enforcement gaps for AI and has launched several cases under this theory.
• AI platforms also create issues for cartel enforcement, as AI-informed collusion does not rely on conversations or words but can effectuate the same kind of traditional conspiracy. As a result, antitrust agencies struggle with how to properly investigate cartels based on algorithms or AI.

Pricing algorithms

• Despite difficulties with AI, there have been some developments in enforcement against anticompetitive pricing algorithms. Though the law is still developing, enforcers and plaintiffs have argued that when competing firms adopt an algorithmic pricing software, there exists an agreement among the parties who use the algorithm.
• It is not clear that the use of algorithmic pricing tools result in supracompetitive prices, but litigation on that question and others will continue as regulators and courts tease out the appropriate use of these algorithms.

Increased US and international attention on cartel enforcement

• The expansion of tariffs under the Trump administration has weakened traditional market pressures. Some US practitioners argue this has gone so far as to protect cartels from enforcement, as leniency programs lose effectiveness due to the erosion of trust in institutions and enforcement becomes more politicized in the United States. As a result, the United States is at risk of losing its status as a leader in cartel enforcement and other jurisdictions are stepping up to fill the gap, even creating alliances and cooperation agreements without the US antitrust agencies. However, the partnership between DOJ and the US Postal Service creates a strong whistleblower pathway for antitrust enforcement.
• Conversely, international enforcers from Mexico, Canada, Europe, Brazil, and Japan have collectively increased their efforts to prosecute anticompetitive cartels engaged in bid-rigging and no-poach agreements. International leniency schemes have seen an uptick in applications, and enforcers rely heavily on their leniency programs to incentivize whistleblowers; they have collectively agreed that staying ahead of cartel activity requires staying ahead of data technology and AI trends.

Strong state antitrust enforcement continues

• State enforcement priorities align with the populist antitrust goals of the Trump administration’s antitrust agencies, namely housing, healthcare, labor, food, and other consumer-facing sectors. States have a particular interest in conduct that directly affects local market conditions and their residents.
• States are increasingly staffing their attorney general (AG) offices with former federal enforcers, indicating a serious interest in evaluating complaints and remedies even where the state ultimately does not take enforcement action. States are also increasing penalties for antitrust violations in order to overcome the cost-prohibitive nature of bringing antitrust enforcement actions.
• Similarly, states continue to pass mini-HSR acts modeled after the Uniform Law Commission Act, which requires parties to make HSR filings to the states concurrently with federal HSR filings. These filings allow states increased visibility into transactions with local impacts.
• Washington and Colorado were the first states to pass these laws, with California the latest to follow (as of early March 2026).

Expanding merger control globally

• Foreign jurisdictions are expanding merger review powers. Australia added mandatory merger filings, with 100 filings reviewed in 2026 (as of this publication). Canada removed the efficiencies defense from its antitrust guidelines, and the EU has asked parties to engage on efficiencies earlier in the merger review process.
• Cross-border merger review remains strong despite divergent policies. The EU and Mexico have successfully coordinated with the United States on enforcement actions. International enforcers continue to encourage information-exchange waivers to allow for inter-agency coordination and to prevent conflicting remedy decisions.
• Some international agencies also ask parties to submit more information than required by merger review processes and to work alongside the agencies in order to ensure deal review quality persists.

Consumer protection

• Price transparency remains the center of gravity and states are driving the agenda. Expect continued dual-track enforcement under unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) and antitrust against “drip,” partitioned, and algorithmic pricing, with transparency as the touchstone. Panelists emphasized that neither all-in nor unbundled pricing is categorically better for consumers; the risk turns on deception and execution. Watch for divergent state disclosure regimes (e.g., New York’s algorithmic pricing disclosure law, effective November 2025) and active inquiries and sweeps (California AG; congressional letters), alongside growing scrutiny of vendor-provided pricing tools and potential “autonomous” tacit collusion.
• Deceptive influencer endorsements and their AI-driven variants remain top of mind for enforcers and plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are testing disclosure theories (placement, prominence, “material connection”) and pressing premium price/overpayment claims, while defendants are finding traction at the Rule 9(b) stage when complaints do not link specific posts to reliance. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides remain the roadmap; brands should hard wire compliance into influencer contracts, and disclosures should not be buried among a slew of hashtags.
• “Made in USA” claims are an active enforcement lane with parallel class action exposure. The FTC’s Labeling Rule enables monetary relief and is being used alongside Section 5, with recent matters underscoring substantiation, net impression, and prominence (including imagery) as recurring pitfalls. National Advertising Division (NAD) challenges continue to shape expectations for qualified origin claims, while California’s bright line statute and rising private actions elevate forum risk. Practical takeaways include inventorying claims across channels, verifying supply chain inputs, using precise qualified language, and aligning federal and state standards before marketing “US origin” themes.

David Koeller, a law clerk in the Los Angeles office, also contributed to this client alert.

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.