Eric P. Enson
Overview
Consistently recognized by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and The Legal 500 as a leading competition lawyer, clients turn to Eric Enson for his extensive antitrust litigation and counseling experience. Eric represents clients in all manner of antitrust claims, such as complex international cartel investigations and antitrust class actions, including major jury trials. Eric’s experience extends to matters involving claims of monopolization and other types of unilateral conduct.
Career & Education
- Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, J.D., cum laude, 1999
- Baylor University , B.B.A., Economics, 1995
- California
- Advisor, Executive Committee, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section, California State Bar
- Member, ABA Antitrust Law Section
Phenomenal antitrust lawyer who is always a pleasure to work with.
— Chambers and Partners.
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25
New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects
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.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.19.25
Press Coverage | 09.12.25
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.21.25
Representative Matters
- Served as trial counsel for RE/MAX, LLC leading to a nationwide settlement of multiple class actions related to commissions in residential real estate transactions.
- Obtained closure without further action of a DOJ grand jury investigation regarding alleged price fixing of certain building materials.
- Represented Union Pacific Railroad Company in multi-district antitrust litigation involving claims of an alleged conspiracy among the major U.S. freight railroads to fix fuel surcharges in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.
- Obtained closure without further action of DOJ grand jury investigation of alleged price fixing of certain consumer products.
- Represented the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in an Independent Review Process (IRP) under the ICDR rules challenging the removal of price caps in .ORG, .BIZ, and .INFO.
- Defended Taiwanese and Japanese manufacturers of electrolytic capacitors in worldwide investigations of alleged price fixing of capacitors and follow-on civil litigation in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation.
- Defended a Japanese manufacturer of auto parts in a global investigation of alleged industry collusion and follow-on civil litigation in In re Auto Parts Antitrust Litigation.
- Represented ICANN in an Independent Review Process (IRP) under the ICDR Rules relating to an ICANN-administered auction and subsequent award of the .WEB top-level domain for $135 million.
- Executed the successful defense of Sherwin Williams against antitrust counter claims regarding its national distribution system.
- Represented a Japanese computer components manufacturer in multiple class actions alleging price fixing of optical disk drives in Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation.
- Represented U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a successful antitrust challenge to Seattle for-hire driver collective-bargaining ordinance
- Obtained the dismissal of a long-running lawsuit filed by a California distributor challenging The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's termination of its dealer contracts as breaches of contracts, tortious interference, and violations of California unfair competition and federal antitrust law.
- Successfully defended ICANN against claims of monopolization of top-level domains, which was affirmed on appeal in a landmark antitrust decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Served as trial counsel for Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in a two-month antitrust jury trial, resulting in a complete defense verdict that was affirmed on appeal.
- Represented pharmaceutical manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in an antitrust action brought by California pharmacies claiming that Boehringer Ingelheim and other drug companies conspired to inflate drug prices in the United States and keep lower-priced Canadian drugs off the market.
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25
New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects
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.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.19.25
Press Coverage | 09.12.25
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.21.25
Recognition
- Best Lawyers in America: Antitrust Law and Litigation – Antitrust
- Chambers USA: Antitrust – California
- Lawdragon: 500 Leading Lawyers in America, Antitrust & Competition Law
- The Legal 500 US: Cartel/Antitrust Litigation
- Daily Journal: Top 20 Lawyers Under 40, California
- Law360: Rising Star Under 40, Competition Law
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25
New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects
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.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.19.25
Press Coverage | 09.12.25
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.21.25
Insights
The E-Books Case: Getting Everyone on the Same Page, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Joint Conduct and Media & Technology Committees
|02.19.24
USC Global Competition Law Thought Leadership Conference, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, CA
|06.03.22
65th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, Joint Defense Group Ethics, Washington, DC
|03.30.17
Restrictive Practices in Retailing and Distribution, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Los Angeles, CA
|04.30.14
Competitor Collaborations and Competitive Restraints, Strafford Seminar
|03.06.13
Critical Issues & Timely Resolutions, CLE International Antitrust Law
|02.21.13 - 02.22.13
Consumer Protection Law Update, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 2012 Consumer Protection Committee
|01.09.12
Recent Government Challenges to Most Favored Nation Provisions, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Unilateral Conduct Committee
|10.12.11
Creating an Effective Compliance Program for the Detection and Prevention of Cartel Conduct, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Cartel & Criminal Practice and Compliance & Ethics Committees
|03.02.11
Representing Third Party Clients Subject to an Antitrust Agency's Formal Information Request, ABA Section of Antitrust Law
|10.21.10
- |
02.10.25
The Capitol Forum (subscription required)
US Should Target Those Who Are 'Actually Responsible' For High Ticket Prices, Live Nation Says
|05.23.24
Daily Journal (subscriptio required)
Would Breaking Up Live Nation And Ticketmaster Actually Lower Concert Ticket Prices?
|05.23.24
Los Angeles Times
California Antitrust Division Chief Threatens Criminal Enforcement (subscription required)
|03.13.24
Daily Journal
Eric's Insights
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25
New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects
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.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.19.25
Press Coverage | 09.12.25
Firm News | 9 min read | 08.21.25
