We are excited to launch the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly, a publication designed to provide a summary of key cartel enforcement trends across the U.S., Europe, and beyond.
A “cartel” under competition law is typically reserved for agreements between competitors to restrict competition, such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocations. This quarterly report will provide updates on how competition law applies to company collaborations generally. In doing so, we hope this quarterly helps companies structure legitimate collaborations and avoid “cartel” behavior.
Our aim is to offer practical coverage that helps businesses navigate the evolving cartel enforcement landscape and stay ahead of compliance risks. In this inaugural edition, we examine the key developments in Q4 2024 and the beginning of Q1 2025 and lay out our expectations for what 2025 is likely to look like in the area of cartel enforcement.
For any questions or suggestions please contact Brent Snyder, Jeff VanHooreweghe, Jindrich Kloub, or any other member of the antitrust and competition practice at Wilson Sonsini.
We expect cartel enforcement to remain a central focus for regulators in 2025, with authorities in both the U.S. and EU broadening their approach to detecting and prosecuting cartel behavior. While traditional cases involving price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation continue, enforcement agencies are now paying closer attention to newer areas of concern. These include collusion on bids for government contracts, coordination using algorithmic pricing, ESG collaborations, “no poach” agreements, and wage fixing. Additionally, authorities are intensifying scrutiny on how companies handle document retention, particularly regarding ephemeral messaging apps. As enforcement priorities expand, businesses must ensure their compliance strategies keep pace with evolving regulatory expectations.
The U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) remains highly active in prosecuting antitrust violations related to government contracting, securing multiple convictions and indictments in 2024. Regulators have also sharpened their focus on information-sharing practices and the use of pricing algorithms, with major investigations targeting industries ranging from rental housing to tire manufacturing. Meanwhile, ESG collaborations are becoming a legal battleground, particularly in the U.S., where policy shifts could lead to heightened scrutiny of sustainability initiatives by federal antitrust agencies.
Labor market enforcement continues to be an area of interest, particularly regarding no-poach and wage-fixing agreements, though securing criminal convictions has proven challenging in some cases. Regulators are also cracking down on companies that fail to preserve key business communications, issuing significant fines for deleted evidence. Finally, the DOJ is ramping up its enforcement against criminal monopolization, signaling a more aggressive approach to holding both individuals and corporations accountable. As regulatory agencies worldwide refine their enforcement strategies, businesses must remain proactive in assessing their legal risks and compliance obligations.
DOJ Releases Updated Guidance on Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
On November 12, 2024, the DOJ's Antitrust Division released its guidance for the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations (ECCP) in the context of criminal violations of the Sherman Act. Notably, the new ECCP guidance now expects companies to identify and manage risks related to new technologies, and specifically flags the use of AI as well as algorithmic revenue management software. Additionally, the guidance encourages companies to manage ephemeral messaging and employee use of non-company communication methods.
Companies should consult outside counsel to ensure that its compliance program is up-to-date in accordance with the new ECCP guidance, and in particular examine any anticompetitive risks associated with the use of pricing algorithmic tools and/or revenue management software.
DOJ and FTC Withdraw Guidelines for Competitor Collaboration
On December 11, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the DOJ jointly issued a statement withdrawing the April 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. The 2000 guidelines had provided guidance to companies as to whether their procompetitive collaborations with horizontal competitors would raise antitrust issues. However, the agencies noted that recent legal developments, evolving technological business practices, and other policies withdrawn by the DOJ rendered the guidelines outdated. FTC Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak dissented from the decision to withdraw the guidelines.
Companies should consult U.S. antitrust counsel to understand how this new policy change impacts competitor collaboration and future business ventures.
DOJ and FTC Release New Guidance for Business Activities Affecting Workers
On January 16, 2025, the DOJ and the FTC jointly released the Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers, replacing their Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals that was released in October 2016. Unlike the initial guidance in 2016, which was supported by all five FTC commissioners, the 2025 guidelines were accompanied by dissents of the two Republican commissioners–Commissioner Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak.
Consistent with the earlier guidance, the new guidelines expressly state that agreements to fix wages or agreements not to poach employees may lead to criminal liability, regardless of whether they result in actual harm. The guidelines further assert that “an agreement between two or more competing platforms to fix the compensation of independent contractors offering their services via the platforms may constitute the type of per se violation of the antitrust laws that … exposes the platforms to criminal liability.”
Companies should be mindful that certain agreements related to employment and compensation continue to be subject to criminal liability and design their compliance programs to prevent exposure to any antitrust risks in the labor market.
DOJ Enforcement Actions Against Individuals
On October 17, 2024, the DOJ announced criminal sentences for four executives and one corporation for price-fixing and bid-rigging in Georgia's concrete industry. The corporation and two of the individuals pleaded guilty, while a jury convicted the remaining two individuals at trial in July 2024 for their role in a six-year conspiracy. The convicted individuals were sentenced to 26 months and 41 months in prison, three years each of supervised release, and criminal fines. The pleading individuals did not receive prison sentences. Another corporation involved entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in January 2021, admitting its participation in the conspiracy and paying a $20 million fine.
Companies should seek training for their employees from antitrust counsel for education on what conduct constitutes criminal antitrust violations in the U.S. and elsewhere. Violations can lead to prison for up to 10 years and fines up to $1 million for individuals, while corporations can face up to $100 million in fines.
On October 10, 2024, the DOJ issued a superseding indictment bringing charges against six individuals for their involvement in an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets for transmigrante forwarding services in relation to the sale and export of used cars from the United States to Central America. The original indictment was issued on November 9, 2022, and was notable for charging a criminal conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante forwarding industry under Section 2 of the Sherman Act in addition to price-fixing and market allocation under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The indictment alleged acts of violence and threats against transmigrante industry participants who refused to go along with the scheme. On February 7, 2025, Carlos Martinez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to fix prices and allocate the market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2. Several other individuals have also pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Thus far, the DOJ has secured six criminal monopolization convictions since renewing its criminal enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act two years ago.
Companies doing business with foreign countries should seek antitrust counsel regarding the impact of international trade on antitrust law's application to business practices.
FTC Commissioner Holyoak Accuses Chair Khan of Ignoring Cartels Involving Non-Dominant Firms
On December 9, 2024, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak said that Chair Lina Khan is suggesting that regulators ignore anticompetitive activity if it's not coming from what Chair Khan considers “dominant firms.” Commissioner Holyoak's comments came in a statement accompanying a unanimous vote approving changes to a settlement with Puerto Rico's largest pharmacy co-op, Coopharma. According to her statement, Commissioner Holyoak takes issue with comments in a statement by Chair Khan suggesting that agency resources should not have been used against the co-op in the first place. Commissioner Holyoak elaborated on her thoughts via social platform X, saying, “In a last-ditch effort to further undermine long-standing antitrust principles that have helped make the United States economy the envy of the world, the outgoing chair tells the world that cartels are okay as long as they're politically connected."
Companies are advised to closely monitor U.S. agency movements under the new administration as there may be changes to resource allocation and relatively increased enforcement against cartel activities of non-dominant firms.
Head of the Antitrust Division's Criminal Enforcement Program Removed
In January 2025, it was announced that Deputy Assistant Attorney General (AG) Manish Kumar is stepping down as head of the DOJ Antitrust Division's criminal enforcement program. Deputy Assistant AG Kumar has been reassigned to the “Sanctuary Cities Environmental Working Group,” a new division responsible for prosecuting cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officers. It is unclear whether Deputy Assistant AG Kumar will accept this new role. Earlier in January, the Trump Administration named Antitrust Division trial attorney Omeed Assefi as acting assistant AG. Acting Assistant AG Assefi was previously an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., responsible for prosecuting federal violent crimes. He joined the Antitrust Division as a trial attorney in October 2024.
We continue to monitor personnel changes at the Antitrust Division and who will head the criminal enforcement program in 2025.
The New Commission: Impact on Cartel Enforcement
On November 27, 2024, the European Parliament approved the EU's new College of Commissioners, a.k.a. the Commission. The competition portfolio is led by Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition who also oversees the EU's green transition. This combination of policy areas, together with the mission letter from the president of the Commission to Ribera, suggests a shift in competition policy, which, in the cartels area, we expect to impact the Commission's assessment of sustainability collaborations, which are likely to be viewed with even greater understanding than under Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.
Apart from sustainability, we do not expect the new Commission to change course on cartel enforcement, which is likely to remain a key enforcement priority. The Commission will remain focused on increasing its ability to detect cartels through market monitoring, which includes scrutiny of public companies' earnings announcements and the marketing materials of companies offering algorithmic pricing tools. Its efforts to date on this front have yielded several investigations and likely led to an increase in leniency applications, leading to an increased risk of detection.
While cartel enforcement is typically agnostic when it comes to the sectors or products/services involved, two areas stand out in the level of scrutiny from European regulators.
First, much as in the U.S., AI-related competition concerns are gaining significant attention from regulators across Europe. Authorities such as the European Commission (EC), the French Competition Authority, the German Federal Cartel Office, and the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority have all expressed concerns about the risks posed by algorithms. These include the potential for competitors to share competitively sensitive information, fix prices, or collude on other terms or business strategies in violation of competition laws.
In parallel, antitrust authorities in Europe are increasingly targeting wage-fixing and employee no-poach agreements. This pattern is anticipated to persist in 2025, with wage-fixing and no-poach agreements carrying highest enforcement risks with very few avenues for justifications based on efficiencies. Competition authorities in the UK, Hungary, Lithuania, and Portugal have already conducted investigations and imposed fines on companies for anticompetitive conduct in labor markets.
Companies should know that despite the change in the Commission, the EC is expected to continue vigorous enforcement of the competition rulebook, including in areas such as wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, and with respect to colluding practices involving algorithms. However, this change in competition policy may result in the relaxation of competition rules when there are clear environmental benefits.
Advocate General Opinion on Protection of Leniency Application Documents from Prosecutors
On October 24, 2024, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that criminal enforcers may access leniency application documents emanating from antitrust proceedings as long as they are protected from disclosure to other litigants. This guidance came in response to questions referred from the Vienna Higher Regional Court as part of a dispute between construction business Strabag and Austria's public prosecutor. The Austrian court sought clarification from the ECJ on how EU law protects cartel leniency documents in criminal proceedings.
If the ECJ follows the advocate general's advice, leniency applicants will have to factor in the possibility that their submissions to competition authorities in Europe could be disclosed to prosecutors and be relied on in criminal investigations, including against the applicant or its employees.
Companies should know that while leniency applications are protected under EU law from disclosure to private parties, these documents are not necessarily protected from the grasp of prosecutors.
EU Court Confirms Fines for Banks in Government Bonds Cartel
On November 6, 2024, the EU's court of first instance, the General Court (GC), confirmed a 2021 decision of the EC fining several banks for entering into agreements on trading and pricing strategies and exchanging commercially sensitive information on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign, and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). The exchanges of information took place between varying participants in the period between January 2010 and March 2015. Among several participants, the EC fined Crédit Agricole €3.9 million (approx. US$4.1 million) and Credit Suisse €11.9 million (approx. US$12.5 million).
Both Crédit Agricole and Credit Suisse challenged their fines, claiming that the EC had not proven an anticompetitive agreement and that it had erred in calculating the fines. The GC dismissed Credit Suisse's challenge in its entirety. The GC annulled the EC's decision relating to Crédit Agricole insofar as it held that Crédit Agricole's participation in the SSA bond cartel had not been proven for the very first day of its alleged infringement. However, the GC did not lower Credit Agricole's fine overall for participating in the SSA bond cartel.
Companies should be aware that sharing competitively sensitive information carries a high risk in the EU and may be pursued as a type of cartel conduct leading to high fines and likely follow-on damage claims.
Head of Dutch Competition Authority Invites Companies Seeking Innovation-Related Collaborations to Seek Antitrust Guidance
On January 30, 2025, Martijn Snoep, the head of the Dutch Competition Authority (DCA), announced that the agency is inviting companies to seek individual guidance when they want to cooperate with competitors on innovation but are concerned about competition law compliance. This statement signals that the DCA is committed to promoting growth and innovation, after the agency opened the door to informal guidance on sustainability collaborations in 2022.
Firms considering entering into innovation-related collaborations should engage with antitrust counsel at an early stage to design initiatives that are antitrust compliant in any jurisdictions potentially affected by them.
New Zealand Commerce Commission Imposes First Criminal Cartel Fines
In December 2023, the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) filed its first-ever cartel charges against two companies that allegedly rigged bids for public transportation projects in violation of New Zealand's cartel laws. On December 18, 2024, a New Zealand court issued criminal fines in connection with this case to a company director who pleaded guilty in September 2024. After mitigating circumstances, the fine consisted of a six-month community detention and 200 hours of community work. The NZCC is also reconsidering the breadth of what constitutes a per se cartel violation.
Companies operating across jurisdictions should be aware of potential criminal liability in certain non-U.S. jurisdictions such as New Zealand.
Turkish Competition Authority Reaches Settlement with Ecommerce Platforms in Pricing Algorithm Investigation
In November 2023, the Turkish Competition Authority launched an investigation against Amazon and two other ecommerce platforms for their use of automated pricing mechanisms, which potentially violate Turkey's cartel rules. In December 2024, the Authority settled with two of the platforms but noted its continued investigation against Amazon, anticipating a closure by April 2025. AI-related competition concerns are also gaining significant attention from regulators across Europe and the United States.
Companies using automatic price setting algorithms should be aware that competition agencies in different jurisdictions are focusing on potential competition risks involved in the use of such tools.
