Justice Department Requires Verizon to Divest Assets to Acquire Alltel
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.08
On October 30, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to back the $28.1 million merger between Verizon Communications Corp. (Verizon) and Alltel Corp, so long as Verizon divested assets in 100 areas in 22 states where its operations overlap with Alltel's. The DOJ stated that the proposed transaction would have "substantially lessened competition" to the detriment of consumers in those areas and "would likely result in higher prices, lower quality and reduced network investments." Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge if DOJ's Antitrust Division, said that "the divestitures required … are among the most extensive required by the Department in a wireless case." The DOJ, along with Attorneys General of seven states, filed a civil lawsuit to block the proposed acquisition, and simultaneously filed the proposed settlement to resolve the competitive concerns. The complaint states that Verizon and Alltel are each other's closest competitor for a significant set of customers in 94 Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs), as defined by the FCC. The proposed settlement requires divestitures in these 94 areas. Verizon is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the US; Alltel is the fifth larges service provider. The transaction is subject to review by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
