Baker Botts was pleased to sponsor the 19th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, one of the premier gatherings in the competition law community. The September 16, 2025, program featured insights from key senior government officials and regulators, providing attendees the opportunity to hear directly from those shaping antitrust policy and enforcement around the world.
Some of the key takeaways are below, but we are happy to provide you with further insights on these important developments.
Key Takeaways
A Conversation with Andrew Ferguson
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson sat down to discuss his "vigorous" enforcement agenda and the direction of the agency under his leadership. He emphasized the importance of restoring "regular order" to merger review, offering the return of early terminations and merger remedies as examples. But he cautioned parties against "sandbagging" merger review with eve-of-trial remedy proposals, noting the agency was looking for ways to front-load the review of remedies in the HSR process. Another notable break with the previous administration relates to noncompetes, where this Commission views long-established common law tests as defining procompetitive noncompetes, contrasted to the previous administration's attempt at a categorical rule. He also highlighted healthcare as "the market I'm most concerned about," drawing focus to rural areas as hardest hit by what he described as a de facto cap on doctors and nurses. The conversation also touched on global coordination, AI policy, and a just-completed report to the White House on anticompetitive regulations, all of which underscore the FTC's broad and proactive enforcement agenda.
- Return of Early Terminations and Remedies: The FTC is re-embracing early terminations and effective remedies, signaling a more pragmatic approach to merger review.
- Healthcare in Focus: Expect heightened scrutiny of healthcare deals and conduct, with particular attention on rural markets and noncompete agreements for medical professionals.
- Procedural Changes Ahead: The FTC may shift processes to discourage parties from litigating fixes late in the merger process, emphasizing the importance of addressing remedies early in HSR filings.
- Noncompetes Under Fire: Companies across industries are on notice that unreasonable noncompete agreements will draw enforcement, with healthcare markets serving as the agency's starting point.
- Government-Wide Push on Competition: A major report on anticompetitive regulations has been delivered to the White House, reinforcing that the administration's competition agenda extends beyond traditional merger and conduct cases.
Merger Enforcement - A New Era?
This discussion signaled a real tone shift in U.S. merger enforcement as Daniel Guarnera, Director of the Bureau of Competition, described an approach that sorts deals into anticompetitive, procompetitive, or competitively neutral, with early terminations and workable remedies back in regular use. At the same time, he emphasized continuity on core principles: economics still matters, credible engagement with staff is decisive, and agencies will litigate when the facts warrant it.
- Pragmatic triage is back: Agencies recognize many mergers are procompetitive. Expect more early terminations, faster "go or no-go" calls, and no thumb on the scale against all deals.
- Remedies must be clean: Structural divestitures to capable buyers are strongly preferred in the US; parties should propose targeted, merger-specific packages. But the EU and the CMA show some openness to behavioral remedies in the right circumstances.
- Economics carries weight: Traditional horizontal and vertical theories will anchor challenges. Agency economists remain central in framing evidence that resonates with courts.
- HSR is heavier but workable: The new form increases time and data demands, especially for overlaps, but repeat players can streamline. Coordination with foreign regulators remains the norm on complex transactions.
- Labor scrutiny continues: Enforcers will probe labor market effects and noncompete practices, and they view mergers as a moment to reassess restrictive covenants.
Global Enforcers Round Table
The Global Enforcers Roundtable - a hallmark of the program for the past 19 years – once again brought together agency heads from various parts of the world, in this case an impressive cast including the UK, Germany, Japan, and Mexico. The panel dove into the international scope of antitrust enforcement and the challenges of balancing rigorous oversight with resource constraints. Andreas Mundt of the German Bundeskartellamt stressed the importance of addressing digital markets and preventing "killer acquisitions," while Reiko Aoki of the Japan Fair Trade Commission focused on Japan's implementation of new freelance and gig worker laws, alongside sustainability initiatives. Andrea Marván Saltiel, Chair of Mexico's reformed competition authority and the new Chair of the International Competition Network Steering Committee, underscored the significance of institutional reform, stronger sanctions, and expanded sectoral oversight, while Sarah Cardell, CEO of the UK Competition and Markets Authority, emphasized predictability, early engagement with businesses, and the CMA's new powers over entrenched digital platforms. Collectively, the panel reinforced that global competition agencies are sharpening their focus on technology, healthcare, financial services, and agricultural markets while deepening cooperation through institutions like the International Competition Network.
- Digital Markets Under Scrutiny: Authorities worldwide are prioritizing cases in digital markets, targeting powerful global platforms and emerging issues in AI, data, and app ecosystems.
- Healthcare, Finance, and Agriculture in Focus: Beyond tech, enforcers identified healthcare costs, financial systems (such as digital payments), and agricultural markets as priority areas for enforcement.
- Institutional Reforms and Higher Sanctions: Mexico's competition authority has undergone major reforms, with shorter timelines for investigations and mergers but higher penalties for violations.
- A More Selective CMA: Sarah Cardell suggested the CMA would exercise its discretion to forego serious investigations of global deals that lacked a true nexus in the UK.
- Stronger Worker Protections: Japan's new freelance and subcontracting laws highlight global regulators' increasing attention to labor markets and worker protections in competition enforcement.
- Global Cooperation Essential: Agencies are deepening collaboration through bilateral relationships and the ICN, with a focus on aligning merger reviews and remedies while navigating differences across jurisdictions.
Antitrust Enforcement: Are We at Another Inflection Point?
This panel brought together Baker Botts Partner Ed Duffy with other panelists including California Senior Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Paula Blizzard, and the President of the Portuguese Competition Authority, Nuno Cunha Rodrigues, to assess whether U.S. antitrust is at a turning point or cycling through a familiar enforcement rhythm. The consensus leaned toward steady evolution: continuity across administrations, a renewed willingness to litigate when needed, and more pragmatic room for case-by-case arguments on efficiencies, labor effects, and innovation. Speakers also flagged stricter expectations around process integrity, along with growing interactions between antitrust, trade policy, and industrial strategy.
- Case-by-case flexibility: Enforcers are open to tailored arguments on efficiencies and innovation, rather than one-size-fits-all positions on issues like noncompetes.
- Process discipline matters: Expect sharper scrutiny of privilege designations, discovery compliance, and HSR accuracy, with higher penalties for missteps.
- Continuity, not whiplash: Major tech cases and the 2023 Merger Guidelines remain anchors; states like California will continue to pursue independent actions.
- Policy crosswinds: Trade barriers, supply chains, and industrial policy will influence market definition, entry analysis, and efficiency claims in merger review.
- Global alignment with local focus: Agencies aim for convergence on principles while assessing concrete, jurisdiction-specific impacts, which puts a premium on early engagement and credible remedies.
Keynote Address with Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater
AAG Slater gave a forceful speech suggesting that we have reached a true inflection point where agencies are in a position to implement monopolization remedies again, with the goal of opening markets and encouraging innovation, not just punishing past conduct. Drawing parallels between today's AI moment and prior eras of technological change, Slater pointed to Standard Oil, AT&T, and Microsoft to show how targeted remedies can unlock competition across entire industries and fuel new growth.
Hanging over Slater's remarks, but otherwise unspoken, is the remedies phase in the Google case. Although light on any groundbreaking specifics, the DOJ is clearly serious about the remedies in Google and other monopolization cases and seems primed to fight them all the way, setting up a likely Supreme Court battle over Section 2.
So, what's next for the DOJ Antitrust Division?
- Zero in on non-price harms like degraded quality and reduced choice when assessing Section 2 risk in digital markets.
- Build remedy-ready strategies now, including clean divestiture options and pro-competitive commitments that preserve innovation incentives.
- Treat AI as a competition issue. Map data advantages, model access, and vertical integrations that could draw scrutiny across jurisdictions.
Technology & Antitrust: 25 Years Into the 21st Century
This session, led by Baker Botts Partner Anthony Swisher, examined how tech cases are reshaping monopolization law and compliance. Krisha Cerilli, Deputy Assistant Director of the FTC's Technology Enforcement Division, emphasized that antitrust harm is not just about price and that zero-price services can still show market power through quality degradation and ad load, while also flagging that the rulings in Meta mean acquisitions by dominant firms of actual or nascent threats can trigger Section 2 liability. Panelists including Alvaro Ramos, Chief Antitrust Officer at Qualcomm, explored how these principles interact with remedies, the DMA, algorithmic pricing, and real-world deal planning under persistent uncertainty.
- Harm beyond price is front and center: Even when consumers pay zero, enforcers will look at quality, choice, and ad load as evidence of market power.
- Clearer rules for dominant-firm deals: Recent rulings signal that when an incumbent with market power buys an actual or budding rival, Section 2 risk is real, especially where exclusivity or tying is involved.
- Remedies and timing matter: Agencies spent years building these cases. The next battleground is fit-for-purpose remedies that account for fast-moving tech markets and AI.
- Algorithmic collusion is not hypothetical: Pricing tools and real-time data sharing can raise agreement or information-exchange concerns in both the U.S. and EU, drawing scrutiny even without an old-school cartel.
- Killer-acquisition scrutiny continues: Tech and life sciences deals will face rigorous counterfactual analysis; parties should document merger-specific efficiencies early and be ready for multi-jurisdictional review.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
