Insights

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a significant ruling that clarifies the rules governing evidence disclosure in competition damages litigation. The judgment addresses three critical questions: (1) whether pre-action disclosure falls within the scope of the EU Damages Directive, (2) what evidence is needed to establish that there is a plausible damages claim, and that therefore a disclosure request should be granted, and (3) how the plausibility threshold should be assessed.

On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.

On February 10, 2026, California enacted Senate Bill 25 (“SB 25”), known as the California Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. The new law takes effect on January 1, 2027, making California the third state—following Washington (effective July 27, 2025) and Colorado (effective August 6, 2025)—to implement a “mini-HSR” regime modeled after the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (“UAPNA”). The legislation reflects the growing state-level focus on merger oversight, and it signals California’s continuing intent to increase early pre-merger scrutiny and concurrent review of transactions with federal authorities.

In October 2024, the FTC adopted a final rule that substantially modified the HSR form, requiring new categories of information and documents. The final rule was the most significant overhaul of the HSR premerger notification requirements in decades. The new requirements imposed additional time and expense on merging parties, with the FTC estimating that the new form would likely take triple the amount of time to complete than the previous form. Numerous groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sued to challenge the rule.

On 9 January 2026, the European Commission published its Guidelines on the application of Regulation (EU) 2022/2560, also known as the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR).

On January 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (Division) and U.S. Postal Service announced the first-ever payment under the antitrust whistleblower rewards program, awarding $1 million to an individual whose information led to a $3.28 million fine as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with EBLOCK Corporation, an online auction platform for used vehicles.

Seeking to protect their investments in the face of increased liability management exercises, lenders began signing “cooperation agreements,” which required the lenders to cooperate when negotiating to restructure existing debt or provide new debt to their shared borrower. These cooperation agreements protect lenders from “creditor-on-creditor violence” — when one lender (or a subset of lenders) renegotiates with a borrower to the benefit of the negotiating lender and the detriment of the others.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced its annual updates to the thresholds and filing fees related to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the HSR Act). These dollar thresholds are indexed annually based on changes in the U.S. gross national product and the Consumer Price Index.

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.