Insights

Washington – June 4, 2026: Crowell & Moring earned 92 individual rankings for 81 attorneys, as well as 48 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2026 guide. The Chambers guide ranks the country’s top law firms and lawyers through in-depth research, client interviews, and feedback from attorneys at peer firms. 

Washington – November 5, 2025: Crowell & Moring ranked nationally in 20 practice areas in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms." In addition, the firm was ranked in 38 metropolitan categories. 

Washington – August 20, 2025: The 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 44 Crowell & Moring lawyers as "Best Lawyers." 

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.

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.

Growing focus on antitrust enforcement at the federal level in recent years has been accompanied by a similar trend at the state level. Notably, multiple states have enacted or are considering enacting various legislative or regulatory changes that would create new regulatory requirements for businesses and make antitrust suits significantly easier for state attorneys general and private plaintiffs. These include new pre-transaction notice requirements, as well as the expansion of existing state antitrust statutes to cover more types of conduct while shifting the burden and expense of litigation from plaintiffs to defendants. In several cases, states have expressed a clear intent to increase enforcement related to the private equity and healthcare industries specifically.

The Annual Spring Meeting of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law is the world's largest meeting of competition and consumer protection professionals. The Spring Meeting brings together all segments of the global competition and consumer protection community - enforcement officials, private attorneys, in-house corporate counsel, academics, judges, economists, and business people - to share knowledge about all aspects of competition and consumer protection law.

Please join us online for this half day program that will analyze and assess FTC and DOJ merger enforcement in the past year and then look forward to what implications their policy priorities may have for tech (and beyond). The program, hosted by Professor William E. Kovacic, Director, Competition Law Center, George Washington University Law School, and Professor Andrew I. Gavil, Senior of Counsel, Crowell & Moring, will consist of two panels and a fireside chat. More details are below. 

In response to the digital revolution and the increasing impact technology has on business, Competition Authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are stepping up merger control enforcement. They are revising current policies, advocating for more aggressive use of existing rules to their full potential effect, and calling for new laws and regulations where they see the need. What does this mean for companies engaging in transactions in the digital marketplace and other industries? Is it becoming harder to predict if a deal will be subject to merger control? Are some deals more likely to receive enhanced scrutiny than others? And, what are the broader implications for all sectors when Competition Authorities push the boundaries on traditional theories of harm and remedies, and prohibitions become more commonplace?    

What factors have led antitrust enforcers and legislators to express concerns about the state of merger enforcement, particularly in digital markets? Are the horizontal and vertical merger guidelines equipped to handle antitrust issues in today’s economy? How have prior transactions by the big tech companies ignited the next wave of potential merger guidelines revisions, and which specific concerns are likely to be addressed? And what should companies across all industries expect if and when the merger guidelines are updated?