Insights

On 8 October 2026, Crowell & Moring, King's College London, and the Competition Law Center at George Washington University co-hosted the 7th EU Competition Law Conference at De Warande in Brussels. Mark Meador, Commissioner at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), delivered the opening keynote address, followed by four panels bringing together practitioners, regulators, academics, and in-house counsel to discuss the latest developments in EU, UK, and US competition law enforcement. Among other things, the panels examined algorithmic pricing; the European Commission's (Commission) new guidelines on exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU (Article 102 Guidelines); the impact of dominant positions in merger reviews; and lessons from the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. 

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.

On September 9, 2026, the European Commission proposed a new Public Procurement Act that would fundamentally change the way that public procurement is regulated across the EU. In this alert we look at what changes have been proposed, and discuss how those changes would affect companies – whether EU-based or not — that wish to participate in European public procurement.  

California AB 1776 (Aguiar-Curry) — dubbed “The Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act” — was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, on September 30, 2026. The new law, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, bans single-firm monopolization, making it “unlawful for every person to monopolize or monopsonize, attempt to monopolize or monopsonize, maintain a monopoly or monopsony, or combine or conspire with another person to monopolize or monopsonize any part of trade or commerce.” Crowell & Moring served as counsel to the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) throughout the legislative process, advising on the bill’s impact and advocating for critical amendments designed to preserve competition and innovation in California.

The FTC notched a recent win in federal court, securing a permanent injunction halting the combination of the two dominant brands of construction adhesives, Loctite and Liquid Nails.  In the recently unsealed decision, the court focused on the extensive head-to-head competition between the parties and the importance of brand equity in siding with the FTC, offering important lessons for merging parties.   

On 3 September 2026, the European Commission adopted new Guidelines on the application of Article 102 TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The Guidelines follow a public consultation on a draft published in August 2024 and reflect substantial stakeholder feedback. They replace the Commission's 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities (which ceases to apply 30 days after publication of the new guidelines in the Official Journal) and represent the most significant reset of the Commission's Article 102 enforcement framework in nearly two decades. The Commission's stated aim is to set out principles and operational guidance, enhance legal certainty, and help companies self-assess their exclusionary-abuse risk.

Enbrel (etanercept) is one of the best-selling biologic drugs in the United States, approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other serious inflammatory conditions. Etanercept was launched as Enbrel in 1998 as a treatment for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, and was later approved to treat additional inflammatory diseases including plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis.  

Algorithmic pricing tools commonly used by businesses to increase efficiency and profits are under increasing antitrust scrutiny. This summer, federal regulators, state attorneys general, and state legislatures grappled with competing businesses providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to common algorithmic platforms. The Third Circuit deepened an emerging circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on algorithmic pricing liability, reviving antitrust claims against Atlantic City casino-hotels in a decision with direct implications for any company that uses a common pricing platform. See Crowell’s recent client alert. And New Jersey enacted two landmark laws—the FAIR Act and the Fair Price Protection Act—directly regulating algorithmic rent-setting and surveillance pricing. See Crowell’s recent client alert.

On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced that it will again use targeted Second Request investigations and released a revised Model Timing Agreement, another signal that this Antitrust Division continues to take a more business friendly approach toward merger review. The model introduces an optional “Expedited Consideration” process that gives merging parties the option to address discrete competitive concerns identified by the DOJ before undertaking full Second Request compliance.

Two federal appellate courts have now looked at analogous allegations of price fixing using AI-driven pricing software and reached opposite conclusions—creating an arguable circuit split and providing additional guidance to companies using algorithmic pricing tools.

On July 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against Nielsen, handing Cumulus Media a significant win in a constructive tying case with implications beyond the radio ratings industry. Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, No. 26-88 (2d Cir. Jul. 13, 2026).

A recently filed class action lawsuit against Gymshark, a prominent athletic apparel company, highlights the escalating legal risks associated with influencer marketing. The complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 16, 2026, alleges that Gymshark systematically paid social media influencers to promote its products without ensuring that the influencers were providing clear and conspicuous disclosures about such payment, in violation of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance and New York state law.

In the underlying litigation, Epic Games alleged that Apple violated antitrust and unfair competition laws by engaging in anti-steering behavior related to purchases on Apple’s in-app payment system. Apple received a percentage of payments made through this system, and Epic Games argued that Apple prohibited app developers from informing users about alternative payment options.  

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.

On June 8, 2026, a new EU regulation was adopted to replace the 2019 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening Regulation. The new regulation requires all Member States to establish a screening mechanism for inbound FDI. It also defines a mandatory minimum sectoral scope, expands coverage to investments by foreign investors’ EU subsidiaries, and improves coordination between Member States and the Commission.

In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.

California’s COMPETE Act (AB 1776) narrowly passed the California State Assembly by three votes on Wednesday and now moves to the California State Senate. The bill — introduced in March by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — is modeled closely on draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission in September. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but, based on recent amendments, would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Crowell & Moring is representing the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) in monitoring, analyzing, and responding to AB 1776. 

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (the Division) revealed criminal charges against China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (CIMC) and several other major Chinese companies and executives involved in the manufacture and sale of standard dry shipping containers, which are used for shipping dry, unrefrigerated cargo on ships around the world. One of the executives was arrested at an airport in France and is awaiting extradition to the U.S. The indictment charged these defendants with violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrict output and fix prices of standard dry containers, including in the U.S. market, from 2019 to 2024.

On 30 April 2026, the European Commission published draft merger guidelines that will replace both the 2004 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and the 2008 Non-Horizontal Merger Guidelines, consolidating them into a single analytical framework.