As predicted, the Division’s first jury trial win in a wage-fixing case put wind in the Division’s sails. Soon after, the Division launched new tools and efforts to keep the momentum going. On July 8, 2025, the Division announced a new program that could provide financial rewards to whistleblowers who report criminal antitrust violations. The Division also announced plans to have more witnesses testify in grand jury proceedings, which increases the stakes in an investigation. Given the current shifting economic landscape—especially with the uncertainty related to tariffs—we expect the Division to look for every opportunity to leverage these new tools to detect anticompetitive conduct.
The Division’s list of active investigations and areas of interest continue to expand, including recent disclosures about probes in the fragrance and entertainment industries, among many others. In response to the president’s executive order on lowering drug prices, the Division and Federal Trade Commission also recently hosted a series of “listening sessions” to understand what is driving drug prices, potentially signaling continued scrutiny of the industry.
The Division’s successes also continue to mount. A flurry of resolutions in the Division’s criminal monopolization investigation of the transmigrante industry, which it conducted jointly with other criminal components, contributed to numerous lengthy sentences, including an eleven-year prison sentence and $2 million fine for one defendant. The Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), created during President Trump’s first term, continues to be an active source of antitrust and fraud-related prosecutions.
Competition enforcers around the world likewise ramped up enforcement efforts. In Europe, competition agencies continue to scrutinize algorithmic pricing and issue record fines. Additionally, recent amendments to Canada’s Competition Act expanded the regulatory agencies’ enforcement capabilities and opened new avenues for private litigation.
These updates and more are in this latest edition of the “Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up.”
DOJ Looks to Build on Recent Wins with More Grand Jury Testimony, Rewards for Whistleblowers
Key Point: After the Division’s first trial win in its labor market enforcement campaign, it signals use of more aggressive investigative practices.
Recently, the DOJ secured its first major win in the labor market space against a home health agency executive accused of colluding with other home health executives to suppress wages for nurses providing home healthcare services. The trial investigation highlighted the Division’s use of several tools, including tape recordings, cooperating witness statements, grand jury testimony, and charging fraud counts alongside Sherman Act counts.
On the heels of this trial victory, the Division has announced several policies intended to keep the momentum going. First, reports surfaced that the Division intends to require more witnesses to testify in grand jury proceedings. This is a stark change from the Division’s historical practice of relying on informal witness interviews, often involving leniency applicant employees and other cooperating witnesses. Increased reliance on grand jury testimony signals its focus on developing more concrete evidence for trial.
In addition, on July 8, 2025, the Division announced a new whistleblower reward program in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service and its Office of Inspector General. The program offers monetary rewards to individuals who report criminal antitrust violations affecting the Postal Service, with potential payouts of up to 30% of any resulting criminal fine. Like the Division’s leniency program, the initiative aims to generate new leads from individuals with firsthand knowledge of criminal antitrust and related offenses, especially after a period of low criminal antitrust fines. However, the interplay between the leniency and whistleblower programs is something that will need to be sorted out over time.
These policy developments reflect Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater’s resolve to vigorously pursue antitrust violations.
Algorithmic Collusion Investigation Updates – DOJ Reaches Proposed Settlement with Greystar
Key Point: The Division reached a proposed settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC to resolve its civil claim as a part of its ongoing enforcement efforts targeting algorithmic coordination and anticompetitive practices in rental markets across the country.
On August 8, 2025, the Division reached a proposed settlement with Greystar, the largest landlord in the United States with almost 950,000 rental units across the country under management. As alleged in the civil complaint, the Division claimed that Greystar and other landlords, including five co-defendants, shared competitively sensitive data to generate pricing recommendations using defendant RealPage, Inc.’s algorithms, which had the purported effect of aligning and inflating rental rates. The Division also alleged that Greystar and other landlords discussed competitively sensitive topics directly with each other— including pricing strategies, rents, and selected parameters for RealPage’s software. This civil case was the result of an investigation by the Division that also included a criminal component that was purportedly closed last year.
If approved by the court, the proposed consent decree, among other requirements, would require Greystar to refrain from using any anticompetitive algorithm that generates pricing recommendations using its competitors’ competitively sensitive data or that incorporates certain anticompetitive features, sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors, and participating in RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords. Notably, the proposed consent decree defines “competitively sensitive information” broadly, including past, present, or prospective information that could be used to determine inventory, rents, or any other rental terms. The Division’s proposed settlement with Greystar comes months after the DOJ announced a proposed settlement with another property manager, Cortland Management.
The Greystar settlement’s terms reiterate recent statements from Division officials confirming its continued scrutiny of algorithmic pricing tools and their potential for collusion.
Procurement-Related Collusion, Fraud Remain Enforcement Priority
Key Point: The PCSF proves to be a centerpiece of the second Trump administration and has ramped up enforcement even while other investigations wrap up.
Launched during President Trump’s first administration, the PCSF continues to scrutinize procurement collusion and related violations. The PCSF under Trump 2.0 shows no signs of slowing down.
On June 11, 2025, a federal grand jury in Miami indicted the owner of a marine fuel supply company over a purported multimillion dollar scheme to defraud the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The charges purportedly relate to the owner’s use of fake invoices and fake names and businesses to bill the government for services never administered.
The Division also had several defendants from earlier investigations sentenced. On May 23, 2025, Daniel L. Israel, a former senior executive of a Michigan asphalt paving company, was sentenced to 6 months in prison and a $500,000 fine for his role in a multilayer big-rigging conspiracy involving paving services contracts with the Department of Transportation. Commenting on the sentence, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi emphasized that one of the Division’s priorities is ensuring that individual defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct are incarcerated.
Finally, following a guilty plea entered in May 2024, on June 6, 2025, Ike Tomlinson, the former owner of several fuel truck supply companies, was sentenced to 12 months in prison and a $20,000 fine for his role in conspiracies to monopolize, rig bids, and allocate territories for fuel truck contacts with the U.S. Forest Service for battling wildfires in Idaho and the mountain west.
Division Sniffs Out Potential Collusion, Pauses Civil Case Involving Global Fragrance Industry
Key Point: The Division confirmed that it has been working with enforcers around the globe in a series of legal actions and investigations across jurisdictions focused on the fragrance market.
On June 13, 2025, the Division confirmed its long-suspected price-fixing investigation of international fragrance companies. This comes after European antitrust regulators conducted raids in March 2023 on several fragrance companies based on suspected collusion, including Firmenich International SA, Givaudan SA, International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., and Symrise AG. MoFo first reported on these raids on July 1, 2023, and indicated that they were likely to set the stage for cartel enforcers here in the United States soon after.
As predicted, the Division announced its investigation last month in a motion to intervene in ongoing class action litigation in New Jersey federal court. In the ongoing class action litigation, direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and end users of fragrance ingredients allege that manufacturers conspired to raise prices of their products, divide up markets, and agreed to limit supplies for certain fragrance ingredients. In its motion to intervene, the Division told the court that it is conducting a parallel criminal antitrust investigation in the fragrances industry, but determined that it needs to intervene in the civil case because of “a potential dispute among the parties regarding the appropriate scope of jurisdictional discovery.” The Division aims to agree with the parties during meet and confer to agree on the scope of jurisdictional discovery before it seeks a stay.
When defendants moved to dismiss the litigation last year, Judge Martini dismissed certain state law claims but denied the motion as to the bulk of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. As a result of the Division’s motion, those cases will be paused while the Division continues its investigation, although no charges have been filed to date. Stay tuned for further developments.
From Merger Filing to Indictment: Division Charges CEO for Conduct Uncovered in Unrelated Transaction Review
Key Point: The Division indicted a CEO for bid rigging discovered during a merger review, which is a costly reminder about the value of conducting thorough due diligence reviews when completing a transaction and the value of the Division’s safe harbor provisions.
On July 9, 2025, the Division announced the indictment of Tim Leiweke, CEO of Oak View Group LLC (Oak View), for allegedly rigging a bid to build and operate a new arena on the campus of the University of Texas, Austin.
Both Oak View and Legends Hospitality Parent Holdings (Legends) are live entertainment companies bidding to develop and operate a new $338 million arena at the University of Texas, Austin. According to the indictment, Leiweke persuaded Legends’ CEO to “stand down” and not bid on the project in 2018. In exchange, Leiweke allegedly promised to award Legends subcontracts for the arena’s food and beverage services and premium seating sales. Although Legends did not submit a bid, Oak View did not award any subcontracts to Legends.
Both Oak View and Legends reportedly cooperated with the investigation, and the Division entered non‑prosecution agreements with both companies, which agreed to pay $15 million and $1.5 million in penalties, respectively.
According to media reports, the indictment likely grew out of the Division’s review of Legends’ $2.3 billion acquisition of ASM Global in 2024. The Division approved the deal but also fined Legends $3.5 million for failing to operate separately from ASM as Legends effectively assumed control of ASM prior to the expiration of the applicable waiting period. This case is a good reminder to conduct proper due diligence in large transactions for potential antitrust violations unrelated to the transaction.
Division Reportedly Pursues Criminal Predatory Pricing Investigation
Key Point: The Division is said to have launched a criminal investigation into router-maker TP-Link’s pricing practices.
The Division is reportedly investigating whether TP-Link Systems—a prominent home-internet router manufacturer based in California—engaged in illegal predatory pricing tactics. Division prosecutors are purportedly investigating whether TP-Link engaged in predatory pricing strategies, including, but not limited to, the selling of goods below cost to gain market share. The investigation, which began last year, is ongoing.
In recent months, several government agencies have scrutinized the technology company for potential national security risks associated with its Chinese-made routers. In this case, although the company says that it is no longer affiliated with Chinese company TP-Link Technologies Co., the Division is reportedly concerned that the company’s pricing tactics could hurt the ability of other companies that do not pose national security risks to sell routers in the United States.
This investigation may be a new chapter in the Division’s renewed efforts to resurrect criminal enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. To date, the Division’s recent monopolization cases have involved conspiracies between multiple defendants and additional criminal conduct, whether acts of violence, as in the transmigrante investigation, or bid-rigging, as in the lumber case. It also would be the first publicly known criminal investigation against a company based solely on unilateral conduct such as predatory pricing.
European Commission Scrutinizes Algorithmic Cartels and Issues Massive Fines, While Lithuanian Court Recalls Record Fine
Key Point: The European Commission (the Commission) confirmed that it is working on “multiple algorithmic pricing antitrust investigations” and recently levied landmark fines in no-poach and information sharing cases.
On July 9, 2025, the Commission’s deputy director-general for competition confirmed that the agency is working on multiple algorithmic pricing antitrust investigations, but did not specify which sector or companies are under investigation. While the Commission has yet to officially bring its first algorithm case, its guidance states that the same conduct that is considered illegal if achieved without an algorithm will remain illegal if undertaken through an algorithm.
While the Commission’s algorithmic pricing cases play out, it finalized two cases in the second quarter and levied massive fines for engaging in illegal labor market practices and sharing competitively sensitive information.
On June 2, 2025, the “Commission” fined Delivery Hero and Glovo, two major European food delivery companies, a total of €329 million (ca. US$387 million) for their participation in an online food delivery cartel. This decision marks the first time that the Commission has sanctioned a “no-poach” agreement and highlighted the anti-competitive misuse of a minority stake in a rival company. Both companies admitted their involvement and settled the case, resulting in a 10% reduction in their fines. Delivery Hero was fined €223.2 million (ca. US$262 million), and Glovo was fined €105.7 million (ca. US$125 million).
Earlier this year, the Commission fined 15 car manufacturers and an industry association €458 million for a so-called end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) recycling cartel. According to the Commission, for over 15 years, the manufacturers agreed not to pay car dismantlers for processing ELVs. The companies also shared commercially sensitive information on their individual agreements with car dismantlers and coordinated their behavior toward dismantlers.
Around the Cartel World: Global Cartel Sentencing Updates
Key Point: German FCO flexes its enforcement muscle in cartel fines, while Lithuanian fine is undone by regional court.
Beyond the Commission, country enforcers have also been busy. The German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) remains one of Europe’s most assertive competition enforcers. In its 2024/25 Annual Report, published in July 2025, the authority detailed a year of active enforcement: it imposed around €26 million in cartel fines across multiple sectors, including construction, telecommunications, and protective clothing. Most cases were resolved through settlements, and many were triggered by leniency applications (17 in total) and anonymous whistleblower tips. The number of dawn raids remained high, with 18 in 2023 and 11 in 2024, which underscores the FCO’s continued focus on uncovering collusion.
Separately, the FCO announced concerns that pricing control mechanisms (“pricing filters”) restrict third‑party sellers from independently setting their sales prices, as offers that are deemed too high are removed from the website or restricted in their visibility. The FCO views this as a potential abuse of dominance both under its special digital platform oversight regime as well as under the general rules on abuse of dominance.
These developments reflect the FCO’s parallel focus on both traditional cartel enforcement and the regulation of dominant digital platforms under the powers introduced by Germany’s relatively recent competition law reforms.
Elsewhere within the EU, a Lithuanian court recently annulled a record fine imposed on pharma companies. On June 17, 2025, the Regional Administrative Court of Lithuania annulled a €72 million fine imposed by the Lithuanian Competition Council (LCC)—its largest ever—on eight pharmaceutical companies and the industry association. The LCC had alleged that these parties coordinated their responses to a government consultation on drug pricing, effectively aligning their positions to influence the Ministry of Health’s cap-setting process for state-compensated medicines. The LCC has indicated that it may appeal the ruling.
Around the Cartel World: Global Cartel Enforcement Updates
Key Point: From Bulgaria to India, enforcers are busy investigating potential cartel-related violations, while in Canada, legislative changes may enable more rigorous public and private enforcement.
In Bulgaria, the competition watchdog launched a preliminary probe into alleged oligarch-led energy cartel. On June 10, 2024, the Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (CPC) announced a preliminary inquiry into allegations of anti-competitive practices in the domestic energy market.
The CPC was prompted to take action following the publication of an investigation by an NGO, the Anti‑Corruption Fund (ACF), alleging a “hidden cartel” in the energy sector involving a complex network of over 150 companies, and a subsequent tipoff from MPs.
The evidence released by ACF purports to show price-fixing agreements between power plants and electricity, gas, and heating companies. Officially, these entities are registered under different owners from different jurisdictions. However, according to ACF’s findings, all these companies are under the ultimate authority of a Bulgarian oligarch who heads an invisible energy holding company through which he directs and coordinates the companies’ market conduct to manipulate energy prices and extract profits into offshore firms.
The CPC is assessing whether the reported information points to competition law violations or other violations, such as market manipulation or insider trading.
In Canada, amendments to Canada’s Competition Act have expanded enforcement capabilities and opened avenues for private litigation. In June 2024, amendments to Canada’s Competition Act expanded the civil provision and allowed the regulatory agency to pursue past “anti-competitive” agreements dating back to three years old. Previously, the Competition Bureau could only challenge existing or proposed agreements that harmed competition in the present or were likely to in the future. The new amendments also enable the Competition Tribunal to impose monetary penalties and order actions to restore competition between parties involved in anti-competitive agreements. Local experts have observed “invigorated enforcement” by the Competition Bureau sparked by the legislative changes, although the full impact of the amendments remains to be accurately measured.
Starting June 20, 2025, new provisions enable private litigants to directly sue for various breaches of the Competition Act. This includes the ability for businesses and consumers to challenge civil anti‑competitive agreements that “lessen competition substantially,” regardless of whether the parties are competitors.
In India, on June 3, 2025, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) cleared a merger involving two advertising companies currently under investigation. Dawn raids conducted in March 2025 at various Indian ad tech companies led to separate cartel probes. Two of the companies, Omnicom and Interpublic Group, are set to merge in the second half of 2025, pending UK regulatory approval. They are on track to form the world’s largest advertising business and the second-largest ad and marketing communications company in India.
CCI’s approval of the merger highlights the difference between India’s merger review and its investigations. Under India’s Competition Act, merger control and behavior probes are governed by different procedures. Merger reviews typically focus on assessing future market power, while cartel investigations are evidence-heavy examinations of past conduct. Past precedent exists where merger approval did not influence the outcome of enforcement investigations.
While both companies will be expected to cooperate with the ongoing probe until the merger closes, the current investigation into alleged cartel behavior is unlikely to prevent the transaction from proceeding. If collusion is established post-merger, any penalties would be imposed on Omnicom as the surviving entity.
Prepared with the assistance of summer associates Madison Krumins and Michael Tiburzi.
