Welcome to Juntos, our bulletin that explores antitrust and competition developments across US-Latin America. In this issue, we look at key headlines from the second quarter of 2025.
Argentina
Argentina court revokes injunction against proposed acquisition. An Argentinian appeals court suspended and revoked, on June 5, 2025, an earlier preliminary injunction by the National Commission for the Defense of Competition (NCDC), which had prohibited the proposed acquisition of Telefónica Argentina by Telecom Argentina. The appeals court further ordered the NCDC not to issue further decisions that would prevent the acquisition from closing. The effects of the court ruling leave significant questions, as rules promulgated under Argentina’s national competition law do not allow the appellate court to immediately suspend the effects of an NCDC preliminary injunction. Further, the law requires that the NCDC approve a transaction before an acquiror takes control of a target acquisition. As the matter plays out, the outcome of this acquisition could have profound impacts on both the NCDC and merger control law in the country.
Brazil
Brazil investigates information sharing. In Brazil, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), Brazil’s competition enforcer, continues to focus on the exchange of competitively sensitive information, particularly concerning labor markets. In 2021, CADE launched its first investigation into a potential cartel among human resources departments, focusing on allegations of systematic exchanges of information regarding salaries, salary adjustments, and employee benefits. According to CADE, these practices restrict free competition between employers, ultimately limiting workers’ access to better opportunities and compensation. CADE launched two additional cases in 2024, and it has since sent cease and desist letters to the employers in all three cases.
These cases highlight CADE’s sustained and increasing scrutiny of information exchanges involving competitively sensitive information that could affect labor markets and serve as a reminder to both domestic and multinational companies operating in Brazil to be cautious about sharing data on employee compensation and benefits.
Chile
Chilean court signals expanded enforcement against interlocking directorates. Chile’s national competition court, the Tribunal for the Defense of Free Competition (TDLC), issued fines for violations of rules governing interlocking directorates. The fines, announced in April 2025, were notable because the case involved companies whose subsidiaries compete against each other, which represents a significant departure from precedent in the country. Like their counterparts in the US, Chilean enforcers have renewed their interest in enforcing antitrust and competition laws to prevent coordination between competitors or other vertically or horizontally related companies. For more, please read the alert on this topic from DLA Piper’s Chile team.
Head of Chile's FNE says current laws are sufficient to handle tech probes. Chile’s competition enforcement agency (FNE) filed a complaint against Google that accuses the company of abusing its dominant position in the Android ecosystem by limiting alternative app stores and forcing developers to use its Google Play billing system, while prohibiting links to alternative payment methods. The FNE’s complaint alleges that Google has considerable market share – 95 percent in app distribution and over 99 percent in digital goods billing on Android devices – and seeks what would be the highest fine in the agency’s history, nearly USD89 million. The complaint also calls for behavioral remedies aimed at ending these practices. The FNE’s pursuit of larger cases and higher fines comes in the wake of broader concerns about dominant firms shared by other competition enforcers worldwide.
Mexico
Mexico adds new antitrust authority. The Mexican government published in its Official Gazette, on July 16, 2025, amendments to its Federal Competition Law, which, among changes to several of its provisions, creates the National Antitrust Commission.
These changes come as a result of Mexico’s decree, published December 20, 2024, amending, supplementing, and repealing various provisions of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which, among other things, provided for the creation of a new authority in the area of economic competition.
United States
DOJ secures wage-fixing conviction. A federal jury convicted a home healthcare staffing executive, in April 2025, for participating in a multi-year conspiracy to fix wages for home healthcare nurses. The conviction secures for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) its first-ever trial victory in a criminal prosecution that charged labor market violations. Along with the wage-fixing conviction, the jury also convicted the defendant on five counts of wire fraud, which the DOJ sought after the original wage-fixing indictment, in addition to charging the executive with failing to disclose the criminal investigation when he sold his company.
The conviction stands out as a notable milestone for the DOJ after previously failing to obtain convictions on charges of labor market violations (wage fixing and “no-poach” agreements) in a series of trials that began in 2022. Both DOJ and FTC leadership in the current administration have committed to target anticompetitive practices that impact workers, and in announcing the conviction, the DOJ pledged that “The Antitrust Division will zealously prosecute those who seek to unjustly profit off their employees.”
DOJ wins second monopolization case against Google. In April 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division won its second monopolization case against Google in less than a year, after a Virginia federal district court found that Google monopolized key digital advertising technologies, including the publishing ad server and ad exchange markets for display advertising, although a related claim of monopolization of the advertiser ad network market was dismissed. The court found that Google held high and durable market shares, engaged in exclusionary conduct, and charged supercompetitive pricing in the ad server and ad exchange markets, all of which outweighed procompetitive justifications that Google offered in its defense at trial. In particular, the court argued that Google had unlawfully tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange products, harming publishing customers.
The advertising technology case follows an August 2024 decision by a district court for the District of Columbia that found Google was a monopolist in online search.
The case – which the DOJ heralded as a “landmark victory” – notches another notable win for US antitrust enforcers in their efforts to combat exclusionary conduct by dominant firms after decades in which neither the DOJ nor the FTC aggressively enforced the Sherman Act’s anti-monopoly provisions. The DOJ has also pursued monopolization as a criminal offense, recently obtaining significant prison sentences following convictions for monopolization crimes.
DOJ launches antitrust whistleblower incentive. In July 2025, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division announced for the first time in its history a Whistleblower Rewards Program that offers significant monetary incentives – up to 30 percent of fines over USD1 million – to individual whistleblowers who report information regarding antitrust and other related offenses not previously known to the government. The new program brings the Antitrust Division in line with other enforcers that have similar programs, such as for securities and False Claims Act violations, and could have significant impact on the DOJ’s cartel enforcement efforts.
Among its potential impacts, the reward program instantly changes the corporate calculus around the Division’s longstanding leniency regime, as individual whistleblowers now could provide information to the DOJ that forecloses later corporate eligibility for leniency. (Additionally, unlike leniency, the whistleblower program also covers certain non-antitrust offenses.) While the new program was announced in conjunction specifically with the investigative arms of the US Postal Service (USPS), it is unlikely that this will significantly limit the availability of awards, as USPS agents historically have taken a broad view of their mandate to investigate offenses affecting the USPS and previously partnered with Antitrust Division attorneys on numerous investigations. Additionally, there is no requirement that the USPS be materially impacted by the reported offenses. Whether the new program will prove to be a shift for DOJ criminal antitrust enforcement will remain an open question, but it is expected that the DOJ will pour significant resources into raising awareness of the new program and aggressively pursuing eligible complaints.
[View source.]
