Insights

On October 29, 2025, the attorneys general of Florida, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Montana (the “State AGs”) jointly issued letters to three sustainability groups asserting that their plastics recycling initiatives may violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws.

As part of a comprehensive plan to ensure that EU Member States achieve “defense readiness” by 2030, the European Commission has proposed a package of measures to facilitate public and private investments in defense by simplifying legal frameworks relevant to defense. In a previous alert, we provided an overview of the Defense Readiness Omnibus and examined its implications for defense procurement. In this alert, we focus on its implications for the enforcement of competition law.

Earlier this month, California enacted Senate Bill 763 (“SB 763”). The legislation amends the state’s long-standing antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, to increase both criminal and civil maximum penalties for corporations and individuals.  California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is responsible for enforcing the Cartwright Act and stands to benefit from any civil penalties recovered under the new law, sponsored the bill.

On October 16, 2025, the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy presented their Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 to the EU Member States. This comprehensive plan aims to strengthen European defense capabilities. It follows, and should be read together with, the Commission’s Defense Readiness Omnibus that was published in June 2025. The Omnibus contains a set of proposals to facilitate defense investments and boost EU Member States’ responsiveness to today’s security challenges.

California recently enacted two laws instituting new restrictions and requirements for health care transactions. On October 6, Governor Newsom signed SB 351, which codifies elements of the state’s corporate practice of medicine doctrine and strengthens restrictions against private equity, hedge fund, and other private investor control of health care organizations and operations. On October 11, Newsom signed AB 1415, which expands the scope of parties and relevant transactions that require pre-transaction notice to the state’s Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA). Both laws are intended to provide the State of California greater oversight of transactions involving health care entities, and raise additional hurdles for parties seeking to acquire or sell health care operations in the state,[1] consistent with a broader trend across the country. The key points of each of the California laws are summarized below:

This week, California Governor Newsom signed a new California pricing law that will have significant impact to companies doing business in California. The new legislation—known as AB325—will go into effect January 1, 2026 and makes it unlawful under California’s Cartwright Act to collude using a pricing algorithm and to “coerce another person to set or adopt a recommended price or commercial term” using a “common pricing algorithm.”

On Thursday, the California Law Revision Commission (“CLRC”), the influential body that makes recommendations to the Legislature, took significant steps toward its goal of enacting antitrust legislation to regulate single-firm conduct under California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act. The CLRC unanimously voted to move forward with an unprecedented legislative proposal that not only outlaws single-firm “restraints of trade,” but also states that certain federal antitrust standards are not required in California state courts. As a next step, the CLRC will approve a formal recommendation to the Legislature along these lines at the CLRC’s December meeting. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to these developments because of the potentially dramatic impact this kind of law could have, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the CLRC’s recommendations.

About one year ago, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled in its landmark Illumina/Grail judgment that the European Commission could not accept merger referrals from national competition authorities under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) unless those authorities had jurisdiction to review the transaction themselves (see our previous alert).

On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) withdrew its appeals of decisions issued by Texas and Florida federal district courts, which enjoined the FTC from enforcing a nationwide rule banning almost all noncompete employment agreements. Companies, however, should not read this decision to mean that their noncompete agreements will no longer be subjected to antitrust scrutiny by federal enforcers. In a statement joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, Chairman Andrew Ferguson stressed that the FTC “will continue to enforce the antitrust laws aggressively against noncompete agreements” and warned that “firms in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements will receive [in the coming days] warning letters from me, urging them to consider abandoning those agreements as the Commission prepares investigations and enforcement actions.”

In our latest Bloomberg Law article about the growing range of antitrust concerns facing government contractors, Crowell lawyers Michelle D. Coleman and Lauren Fleming explore best practices for contractors who are navigating antitrust investigations involving classified information. 

Government contractors face a growing range of antitrust concerns that are unique to the industry—from how the FTC, DOJ, and DOD analyze defense mergers, to managing information sharing in prime/sub relationships, to navigating antitrust investigations involving classified information. Join us over the coming months for a new series on contractors and competition, where we will explore best practices for in-house counsel and procurement teams to reduce risk in this complex area.

On June 25, 2025, the European Commission adopted a new framework that simplifies EU State aid rules to make it easier for Member States to support the development of clean energy, industrial decarbonization and clean technology. This Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (CISAF) will be in place until December 31, 2030 and replaces the Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework (TCTF), which was introduced in March 2023 to address the economic impact of the war in Ukraine and reduce the EU’s dependence on imported fossil fuels.

On July 9, 2025, the Directorate-General for Competition within the European Commission issued two informal guidance letters, both intended to bring increased clarity on competition law compliance to companies in the transport sector.

On July 8, 2025, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced a new program to provide rewards to individuals who report antitrust violations related to the Postal Service. This is the first program of its kind to provide a monetary reward to individuals who assist in the prosecutions of antitrust crimes. Under the new initiative, whistleblowers will have the opportunity to receive up to 30% of any criminal fines recovered for violations affecting the Postal Service, its revenues, or its property. 

On June 25, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the agenda for its July 9, 2025 Workshop exploring the characterization of gender-affirming health care as involving consumer deception or unfair trade practices. Health care providers, plans, and related businesses should anticipate that investigations and lawsuits related to gender-affirming care will follow under federal unfair competition law and, perhaps first, under state unfair trade practices laws.

Merger consent orders are back at the FTC, and the FTC’s most recent action showcases how the current leadership is analyzing divestiture proposals. Last week, the FTC approved a proposed consent agreement in Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc.’s (ACT) acquisition of retail fuel outlets from Giant Eagle, Inc. that paired standard retail divestitures with a “prior notice” requirement that ACT notify the agency of future acquisitions in certain markets regardless of size. This FTC has signaled greater acceptance of remedies than the prior administration, and this most recent consent puts that on display, with Commissioner Meador providing merging parties guidance on designing effective remedies.

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken issued final judgment in the In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.), approving the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement commonly known as the “House Settlement.” The House Settlement drastically changes how Division I athletes are compensated, and will likely have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

On May 13, 2025, Crowell & Moring and The George Washington University Competition Law Center hosted the Sixth Annual Antitrust and Tech Conference, which provided a platform for discussing pivotal issues in antitrust policy at this time of transition in leadership.

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “U.S. Antitrust Agencies”) filed a Statement of Interest supporting thirteen states’ claims that asset managers violated antitrust and consumer protection law through their environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) activities. The Statement, which opposes the asset managers’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, indicates the federal antitrust agencies support antitrust theories favored by anti-ESG activists, which may lead to federal investigations and lawsuits based on such theories.

On May 12, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled "Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients," which aims to reduce the costs of prescription drugs and biologics for American consumers and other payers. This Order revives a plan from President Trump’s first term and follows his April Executive Order, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which also sought to reduce drug prices. With drug prices in the United States nearly three times higher than many other countries, this second Order asks drug manufacturers to adopt Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) pricing for drugs sold in the United States or face potential regulation. MFN pricing would tether drug prices offered in the United States to the lower-cost prices offered in other comparably developed nations, such as Canada, Germany, or the United Kingdom.