Insights

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.

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater of the Department of Justice, and Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Mark Meador of the Federal Trade Commission, have each looked to the history of conservative voices to chart a path forward for antitrust enforcement in the second Trump Administration. Within the last three weeks, AAG Slater delivered remarks to the University of Notre Dame Law School, Chairman Ferguson delivered remarks at the International Competition Network Annual Conference, and Commissioner Meador shared his policy aims in an FTC paper and a speech to George Washington University. The enforcers emphasized the need for robust antitrust enforcement to break private monopolies and other anticompetitive arrangements. These enforcers appear to align on priorities, though differing slightly in methods, grounding their rationale in what they describe as traditional conservative values, while at the same time distancing themselves from previous Republican administrations which have emphasized anti-cartel policies and an otherwise preference for limited intervention in markets.

Under its new leadership, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has stepped up its enforcement activities and launched a number of initiatives and investigations that put it at the forefront of competition law developments in the European Union.

On April 17, 2025, Arkansas recently became the first state to enact broad restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) owning retail pharmacies within the state.

Two bills currently making their way through the California Legislature could, if passed, have far-reaching implications for how companies doing business in California price their goods and services. California Assembly Bill 325 (Aguiar-Curry) and Senate Bill 384 (Wahab), as drafted, seek broad prohibitions against the use, distribution of, and inputs into algorithmic pricing and supply software, even where there is no coordination among competitors on the use of such software or the setting of prices. Their enactment would reach every business that uses software applications to develop pricing, supply levels and other commercial terms in California. Crowell & Moring represents the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the proposed bills.

In a landmark verdict on April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division notched its first-ever jury trial conviction for criminal wage-fixing under the Sherman Act in United States v. Eduardo Lopez in the District of Nevada. A home health care staffing executive, Eduardo (“Eddie”) Lopez, was found guilty of (1) conspiring with several competing home healthcare staffing agencies to fix the wages of home health nurses in the Las Vegas area, and (2) defrauding the unwitting buyer of his agency by concealing the then-ongoing antitrust investigation into nurse wage and hiring practices. It is worth noting, however, that while the Lopez conviction is a significant milestone for the DOJ’s campaign into labor antitrust violations, wage-fixing cases may be more straightforward to prosecute than no-poach agreements, where the DOJ still has not prevailed before a jury. This victory nonetheless affirms the DOJ’s ability to criminally prosecute labor market collusion as a criminal offense after numerous failed attempts, signaling the prudence of further caution for companies and individuals to mitigate risk in labor antitrust markets.