Insights

Washington – August 20, 2026: The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 57 of the firm's attorneys in its 2027 edition, a testament to the firm's deep bench of legal talent across practices and offices nationwide. In addition, 29 attorneys have been named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® list, recognizing outstanding attorneys earlier in their careers. 

Washington – February 22, 2019: Crowell & Moring LLP’s Antitrust Group has again been recognized as “Highly Recommended” in Global Competition Review’s (GCR) 19th edition of the “GCR 100” – the leading ranking of the world’s competition policy law and economics practices. This marks the fourth year in a row in which the firm was ranked as “Highly Recommended” in Washington, D.C. and New York. Additionally, the group was ranked as “Recommended” in California. GCR is the leading international journal of competition policy and regulation.

There were two significant developments recently at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), a statute that broadly prohibits sellers from engaging in price discrimination that harms competition. First, the Commission settled a litigation against Southern Glazer’s that was initially brought during the Biden administration, and second, the Commission also announced the resolution of an investigation into price discrimination by Gildan Activewear and S&S holdings in the wholesale T-shirt distribution industry. These developments signal a more measured approach to the RPA than in the prior administration but are nonetheless a reminder to companies that the RPA is alive and well and remains an important tool for enforcers and plaintiffs to address price discrimination. Companies that sell to retailers or operate in distribution channels should consider periodic reviews of their pricing structures and compliance programs to ensure compliance with the RPA. 

On October 1, 2026, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied NYP’s motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust complaint brought by three self-funded union health plans. The ruling is significant for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that plaintiffs can successfully allege market power against hospital systems even in the absence of traditionally high market shares. Second, the court’s reasoning closely tracks the arguments advanced by the DOJ in its Statement of Interest filed in the case: that market power need not be established through market share alone and can be shown through direct evidence such as supracompetitive pricing, and that exclusionary conduct and rival foreclosure are not required elements of a Section 1 claim. The recent decision validates the government’s legal theories and could enhance the viability of the DOJ’s parallel action against NYP, which is currently proceeding in the Southern District of New York.

Two significant recent developments illustrate the Trump administration’s increasing focus on policing of hospital contracting practices that limit health plan network design flexibility. On June 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and Ohio attorney general filed a proposed consent decree resolving their civil antitrust suit against OhioHealth. (Prior Alert) Two days later, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a memorandum quantifying the potential economic effects of a broader ban on the types of contracting restrictions at issue in the OhioHealth case and the DOJ's parallel suit against NewYork-Presbyterian. This alert updates our prior coverage of the OhioHealth complaint and summarizes both developments.