2021 will be remembered in antitrust law. Not since the 1970s has there been so much chatter over the fundamental purposes of antitrust policy, or such potential for actual sea change.

Half a century ago, Robert Bork and the Chicago School argued that antitrust law had lost its way and should focus on consumer welfare. Bork’s view was that antitrust enforcement was getting in the way of legitimate competition, and the U.S. Supreme Court was quick to embrace the consumer welfare standard.

Now, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and the new Brandeisians argue that antitrust law has again lost its way and must shed the constraints of the consumer welfare standard.

Khan’s view is that consolidation has gone unchecked in the American economy, resulting in structural harms to competition that the consumer welfare standard is unable to address.

She believes the agency has historically defined markets too narrowly to effectively police broader economic impacts of sustained consolidation, and favored gerrymandered remedies over outright challenges.

Khan has imposed sweeping changes aimed at chilling merger activity and shaping the future of merger enforcement. Against dissents from Republican Commissioners Christine Wilson and Noah Phillips, and charge of going rogue from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the FTC stripped away long-standing exemptions and interpretations that streamlined merger review.

The action came in response to an unprecedented merger wave — 3,845 acquisitions filed with the agencies in the first 11 months of 2021, substantially more than most full years.

The changes are having an impact, making investigations more intrusive, lengthy and less predictable. Still, policy precedes practice, and while the FTC has been heavy on policy, it has yet to test those policies in the courts.

The tests may come in the next year. Meanwhile, we can also expect the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice under Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter’s leadership, to not only continue the trajectory of policy changes but also begin the task of entrenching them in agency practice.

Here, we review the year in FTC policy moves, what they mean and how to navigate the newly laid minefields.

Warning Letters After the Close of HSR Waiting Periods

In an unprecedented move, the FTC recently began issuing letters to parties in transactions

the agency may intend to investigate after expiration of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period. According to the agency in an Aug. 3, 2021, blog, this is the result of “a tidal wave of merger filings that is straining the agency’s capacity to rigorously investigate deals ahead of the statutory deadlines.”

Wilson, however, said on Twitter on Aug. 12, 2021, that she was “gravely concerned that the carefully crafted HSR framework is suffering a death by a thousand cuts,” following her Aug. 9 statement that said “For the HSR Act to retain meaning, it cannot be that the FTC will keep merger investigations open indefinitely, as a matter of routine, every time there is a surge in filings.”

The FTC’s jurisdiction to review transactions is independent of the HSR reporting requirements, with the power to investigate any transaction before or after closing, whether subject to reporting or not, and whether the HSR waiting period has expired or not.

There are examples of the agencies reviewing nonreportable transactions, and even investigating reportable transactions after expiration of the HSR waiting period, though they are rare.

The warning letters do not assert new authority not already existing under law, but notifying parties that an investigation may remain open post-HSR clearance implicates finality and certainty of investigations, but not every transaction gets a warning letter. Those with no issues go through unscathed. Those with clear issues are investigated.

The deals that might pose some issues, but not enough to draw an investigation, might trigger the newly minted warning letter. To show the letters have teeth, the FTC will sooner or later have to challenge a deal post-HSR waiting period, putting it to the test before courts, where it is likely to face hurdles to the extent the deal did not warrant a full investigation in the first instance.

Still, the practice is ushering a change in how provisions are drafted in deal documents. A buyer asserting that it is not required to close over the — arguably — still-pending investigation may face an uphill battle depending on how the closing conditions are drafted, for they typically point to the expiration of applicable waiting periods and not the absence of potential ongoing investigations or issuance of warning letters.

So careful buyers seek closing requirements that no investigations are threatened and that no warning letters have been issued. Recent examples include the 3D Systems Corp.’s agreement to acquire Oqton Inc. and Universal Corp.’s agreement to buy Shank’s Extracts Inc.

The parties’ agreements provided that if a warning letter is issued, the investigation would be treated as closed 30 days after receipt of such letter. Buyers may want to consider similar provisions until more emerges on how the FTC will proceed with warning letter transactions.

More Intensive Merger Investigations

The FTC announced plans on Aug. 3, 2021, to make the second request process both “more streamlined and more rigorous.” The changes include the following:

  • Merger investigations will address additional potentially impacted competition, such as labor markets, cross-market effects, and the impact on incentives of investment firms.
  • Modifications to second requests will be more limited.
  • The agency will require parties to provide more information relating to their use of e- discovery in responding to the investigation.
  • Additional information will be required with respect to privilege claims.

The FTC said these changes are in recognition that “an unduly narrow approach to merger review may have created blind spots and enabled unlawful consolidation.”

Possibly in response to such steeped up investigative techniques and resistance to find common ground with merger parties, Sportsman’s Warehouse Holdings Inc. and Great Outdoors Group LLC abandoned their proposed merger at the end of 2021, citing indications that the FTC would be unlikely to approve the outdoor sporting goods transaction.

The changes, though, do little to streamline the second request process. They make it more complex, burdensome and time-consuming.

Perhaps most notable is the use of the process to delve into labor markets. Republicans Wilson and Phillips argued that FTC leadership may have themselves to blame for the merger review crunch, saying in a Nov. 8, 2021 statement:

If the agency is lowering thresholds of concern and broadening theories of harm, this certainly would explain why the FTC is unable to conduct merger reviews in a timely manner while our sister agency remains capable of addressing the same increased filing volumes within statutory timeframes.

More Onerous Consent Decree Provisions

Where merger parties settle a challenge rather than litigate, the consent decree process sets out the parties’ obligations. Historically, such consent decrees, among other things, required parties to notify the agency prior to certain future acquisitions.

The FTC rescinded this long-standing policy, noting that it:

Returns now to its prior practice of routinely requiring merging parties subject to a Commission order to obtain prior approval from the FTC before closing any future transaction affecting each relevant market for which a violation was alleged.

The agency will also require divestiture buyers to agree to prior approval for any future sale of the assets they acquire. Khan explained the move was to avoid “drain[ing] the already strapped resources of the Commission” on “repeat offenders.”

The FTC included the new provision in its Oct. 25, 2021, consent decree settling a proposed transaction by DaVita Inc., a dialysis service provider. DaVita is now required to receive prior approval from the FTC of 10 years before any new acquisitions, a dialysis clinic business in Utah being in question.

This is a significant change and will chill not only settlements with the FTC, but also M&A transactions at the outset where such provisions are commercially untenable. Wilson and Phillips noted in dissent that “a prior approval requirement imposes significant obligations on merging parties and innocent divestiture buyers.”

The FTC clearly aims to chill M&A activity, and merger agreements that provide more optionality to abandon deals will become more common, though parties intent on pushing their deal through may see a consent decree with 10-year approval provisions as less palatable than litigating, and force the FTC to cave or go to court.

Withdrawal of the Vertical Merger Guidelines

In another party-line vote, the FTC withdrew the vertical merger guidelines, which were issued just last year. Democratic commissioners criticized the guidelines as based on “unsound economic theories that are unsupported by the law or market realities,” and reflecting a “flawed discussion of the purported procompetitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers.”

Vertical transactions are between firms at different levels in the supply chain. Historically, antitrust enforcement of exceptional vertical mergers were rare and difficult given the previously presumed efficiencies. Vertical mergers can eliminate double marginalization, in which firms at each level mark up prices above marginal cost. Elimination of one markup results in lower prices and can be pro-competitive.

Khan, however, argues the guidelines’ “reliance on [elimination of double marginalization] is theoretically and factually misplaced.” Going forward, “the FTC will analyze mergers in accordance with its statutory mandate, which does not presume efficiencies for any category of mergers.”

This too drew a strong rebuke from the Republican commissioners, who said “The FTC leadership continues the disturbing trend of pulling the rug out under from honest businesses and the lawyers who advise them.”

The commission’s challenges to chipmaker Nvidia Corp.’s $40 billion acquisition of U.K. chip design provider Arm Ltd. alleged the transaction would combine one of the largest chip producers with a firm that has essential design technology — critical inputs.

In a Dec. 2, 2021, statement, the FTC said the acquisition “would distort Arm’s incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia’s rivals.”

The FTC’s lawsuit should “send a strong signal that we will act aggressively to protect our critical infrastructure markets from illegal vertical mergers that have far-reaching and damaging effects on future innovations,” FTC Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova said in the statement.

Given that vertical mergers will be closely scrutinized as a matter of course, parties need to consider concerns the FTC may identify and prepare strong counters — other than elimination of double marginalization.

For example, parties could argue that the transaction expands access to products and expands consumer choice. Parties willing to go the distance with a vertical merger should also remain mindful that the guidelines have never been cited or relied on by a court, and it is the established jurisprudence on vertical transactions that will carry the day.

Rescinding the Consumer Welfare Standard

In July 2021, the FTC rescinded its policy interpreting its statutory mandate to root out “unfair methods of competition” as coterminous with promoting consumer welfare under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

In a July 19, 2021, statement, the FTC called the rescinded policy was “bind[ing] the FTC to liability standards created by generalist judges in private treble-damages actions under the Sherman Act.”

Still, the consumer welfare standard has been entrenched in antitrust jurisprudence for decades, and the FTC cannot change that. The immediate impact is thus more likely to be seen in administrative actions in the FTC’s own court.

In a dissenting statement, Republican commissioners countered that FTC leadership does not propose a replacement standard and “that efforts to distance Section 5 from the consumer welfare standard are a recipe for bad policy and adverse court decisions,” adding that, “unlike those in academia, the FTC will have to defend its interpretation of Section 5 in court, where it should expect a hostile reception if it cannot offer clear limiting principles.”

Labor Market Scrutiny

Government investigations and private litigation relating to no-poach and wage-fixing agreements are ballooning, and criminal indictments are now a reality.

Encouraged by President Joe Biden’s executive order on competition, the FTC and the DOJ have doubled down on investigating labor markets. Merger investigations now routinely include requests for employee compensation data, inquiries regarding noncompete and nonsolicit agreements, and are more likely to delve into both the merger’s effects on labor, and the parties’ prior labor practices.

The DOJ’s challenge to Penguin Random House LLC’s proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster Inc. focuses on harm to the labor market — for authors.

In his first public comments, the DOJ’s Kanter said:

We will fight for American workers including in connection with illegal mergers that substantially lessen competition for laborers. Going forward, you can expect efforts like these not only to continue but to increase.

Khan echoed the sentiment, saying:

Competition and conduct can hurt us not just as consumers who buy products from a shrinking number of large firms, but also as workers who are especially vulnerable and subject to the whims of a boss we can’t equally or practically escape.

Antitrust compliance policies now must extend to addressing practices with respect to employee recruiting and compensation. Antitrust compliance training must extend beyond the sales team, and include HR. Businesses are reviewing and revising their compliance policies, and beginning new antitrust training programs to ensure that they are not subjected to claims of depressed wages and barriers to worker mobility.

Looking Ahead to the Year to Come

The year 2021 has been like no other for antitrust enforcement. While the FTC’s various policy pronouncements are clearly intended to chill merger activity, it does not appear to have had the intended outcome.

HSR filings continue at off-the-charts levels. Amid this strong showing of M&A activity, the advice is to keep moving transactions forward, stay ahead of the new tacks the agencies might take, and account for newly injected risk and uncertainty.

Looking ahead, expect another energetic year. So far, the FTC’s policy changes have not seemed to slow the pace of merger activity, but the frenzy cannot last forever. Nonetheless, merging parties are now going into the merger review process with eyes open, knowing it is likely to be more intense and uncertain. Parties to vertical transactions will no longer ride easy on double marginalization theories, and parties will be handing over their HR and payroll files.

At the same time, the heavy resistance to these changes will continue, if not strengthen, and will play out not just in courts and the halls of Congress, but will also spill into the political mainstream.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is planning to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ad campaign across 10 states denouncing what it calls the FTC’s overstepping of regulatory authority.

And the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, an advocacy group backed by the Koch family, is starting to lay the groundwork of a challenge to the FTC’s merger policy changes. It recently filed a Freedom of Information Act suit seeking communications and directors related to the decisions.

Yes, 2021 will be remembered in antitrust law. But the real show may be 2022. 

Reproduced with permission. Originally published January 2022, “How To Navigate The Coming Antitrust Policy Tests,” Law360.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Colin Kass Colin Kass

Colin Kass is a partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the Antitrust Group, and a member of the Firm’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team. An experienced antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer, Colin has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout…

Colin Kass is a partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the Antitrust Group, and a member of the Firm’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team. An experienced antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer, Colin has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout the United States and before administrative agencies. His practice involves a wide range of industries and spans the full-range of antitrust and unfair competition-related litigation, including class actions, competitor suits, dealer/distributor termination suits, price discrimination cases, criminal price-fixing investigations, and merger injunctions.

Colin also has extensive experience dealing with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice in obtaining clearance for competitively-sensitive transactions and handling anticompetitive practices investigations. His practice also includes counseling clients on their sales, distribution, and marketing practices, strategic ventures, and general antitrust compliance.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating…

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating to competition and antitrust, CFIUS or foreign investment issues.

For more than 25 years, John has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or price gouging compliance.

John’s practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of CFIUS and antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. He advises clients on issues related to CFIUS national security reviews, and on CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that have national security sensitivities.  He also regularly advises clients on international antitrust issues arising in proposed acquisitions and joint ventures, including reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and numerous other foreign merger control regimes.

His knowledge, reputation and extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance make him a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review. John is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings and takes on the issues of the day.

Photo of David Munkittrick David Munkittrick

David Munkittrick is a litigator and trial attorney. His practice focuses on complex and large-scale antitrust, copyright and entertainment matters in all forms of dispute resolution and litigation, from complaint through appeal.

David has been involved in some of the most significant antitrust…

David Munkittrick is a litigator and trial attorney. His practice focuses on complex and large-scale antitrust, copyright and entertainment matters in all forms of dispute resolution and litigation, from complaint through appeal.

David has been involved in some of the most significant antitrust matters over the past few years, obtaining favorable results for Fortune 500 companies and other clients in bench and jury trials involving price discrimination and group boycott claims. His practice includes the full range of antitrust matters and disputes: from class actions to competitor suits and merger review. David advises antitrust clients in a range of industries, including entertainment, automotive, pharmaceutical, healthcare, agriculture, hospitality, financial services, and sports.

David also advises music, publishing, medical device, sports, and technology clients in navigating complex copyright issues and compliance. He has represented some of the most recognized names in entertainment, including Sony Music Entertainment, Lady Gaga, U2, Madonna, Daft Punk, RCA Records, BMG Music Publishing, Live Nation, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Universal Music Group and Warner/Chappell.

David maintains an active pro bono practice, supporting clients in the arts and in immigration proceedings. He has been repeatedly recognized as Empire State Counsel by the New York State Bar Association for his pro bono service, and is a recipient of Proskauer’s Golden Gavel Award for excellence in pro bono work.

When not practicing law, David spends time practicing piano. He recently made his Carnegie Hall debut at Weill Recital Hall with a piano trio and accompanying a Schubert lieder.

David frequently speaks on antitrust and copyright issues, and has authored or co-authored numerous articles and treatise chapters, including:

  • Causation and Remoteness, the U.S. Perspective, in GCR Private Litigation Guide.
  • Data Breach Litigation Involving Consumer Class Actions, in Proskauer on Privacy: A Guide to Privacy and Data Security Law in the Information Age.
  • Location Privacy: Technology and the Law, in Proskauer on Privacy: A Guide to Privacy and Data Security Law in the Information Age.
  • FTC Enforcement of Privacy, in Proskauer on Privacy: A Guide to Privacy and Data Security Law in the Information Age.
  • The Role of Experts in Music Copyright Cases, Intellectual Property Magazine.
  • Nonprofit Education: A Historical Basis for Tax Exemption in the Arts, 21 NYSBA Ent., Arts, & Sports L.J. 67
  • A Founding Father of Modern Music Education: The Thought and Philosophy of Karl W. Gehrkens, Journal of Historical Research in Music Education
  • Jackson Family Wines, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc. Represented Diageo in trademark infringement litigation