Trends and Enforcement Priorities at the 2026 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting
Antitrust and competition lawyers, economists, and enforcers from around the globe gathered in Washington DC in late March for the American Bar Association (ABA) Antitrust Section’s Spring Meeting to discuss key trends and enforcement priorities in antitrust law. In short:
- Staff reductions at the DOJ and FTC are likely impacting federal antitrust enforcement decisions;
- State enforcers are increasingly enforcing antitrust laws independent of federal action; and
- The global focus on big-tech and digital markets has not slowed down.
Enforcer Resource Constraints Likely to Impact Enforcement
The two US federal antitrust enforcers—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ)—have experienced a significant reduction in staffing, with one speaker estimating agency headcount has fallen by 25–30% since January 2025. Speakers described how changes to federal hiring practices and the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency have made it challenging to recruit line attorneys with the skills and ability to put in the many hours needed to support significant enforcement activity. In addition, there has been leadership turnover at the DOJ, with the departures of Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Gail Slater shortly before the Spring Meeting and Attorney General Pam Bondi shortly after the meeting concluded. These resource constraints and the leadership changes are impacting federal enforcement strategy.
Notably, the FTC and DOJ are increasingly favoring negotiated settlements over contested litigation. In the merger context, for example, they are preferring settlements to achieve the desired remedy without the cost and burden of a trial. The increased use of settlements may not, however, be indicative of a trend of decreased enforcement. Former Assistant Attorney General Slater, who spoke at the meeting after she departed DOJ, discussed the importance of antitrust enforcement to foster economic growth.
These resource constraints are also changing the balance of power in litigation, with private plaintiffs increasingly taking a prominent role (even more than before) and state attorneys general flexing their antitrust expertise.
State Attorneys General Play an Enhanced Role in Antitrust Enforcement
The federal resource constraints are bringing to the forefront the importance of state antitrust enforcement. State attorneys general offices are hiring former federal antitrust enforcement attorneys and enhancing their antitrust expertise and have also requested and received budget increases to hire outside counsel for antitrust cases. This means that states are flexing their antitrust roles as never before.
Merger Enforcement: Prior to the Spring Meeting, Colorado, Washington, and California had already enacted premerger notification statutes and several other states were considering similar legislation. We learned more about these states’ efforts during the Spring Meeting. Colorado and Washington both have received over 200 filings since their laws took effect in summer 2025, but their staffing has not necessarily increased to match that. Indeed, state enforcers noted the new premerger notification laws do not provide them with a new pathway to block transactions, but rather give states expedited access to information about proposed transactions without the need for a subpoena.
Willingness to Act Independently: At the Spring Meeting, state antitrust enforcers spoke about a willingness to bring antitrust actions where the federal government has declined to act or to continue litigating after the federal government has settled. While many state antitrust actions rely on “traditional” antitrust theories grounded in federal law, state enforcers highlighted instances where states have brought cases based on novel legal theories or state-specific antitrust and consumer protection statutes to address local problems. Some states are also enacting new or amending existing antitrust laws to increase enforcement authority. For example, California amended its state antitrust law last year to lessen the pleading standard, though practitioners at the Spring Meeting noted the practical impact is uncertain, as most cases are brought under federal antitrust statutes, whereas the pleading standard remains the same. Businesses should recognize the potential for state antitrust enforcement, and engage with both federal and state regulators to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
Everyone Remains Obsessed with Algorithms, AI, and Digital Markets
Over the past year, the number of antitrust cases involving algorithms, artificial intelligence, and digital markets has continued to grow. Throughout the Spring Meeting, private plaintiff counsel, defense counsel, in-house counsel, and enforcers from throughout the United States and around the world wanted to talk about new theories of anticompetitive violations and harm. But enforcers took care to note that traditional antitrust theories—price-fixing, unlawful information exchanges, or monopolization—remain applicable and can be used to address conduct involving emerging technologies. The same concepts of parallel conduct—such as use of the same software—and nuts-and-bolts definitions of competitively sensitive information remain key.
All speakers were interested in brainstorming how businesses can minimize antitrust risks associated with the use of emerging technology, including through the imposition of safeguards over proprietary data. EU enforcers described their interest in the use of informal guidance to help businesses mitigate risk.
