October Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Top-of-Mind Global Antitrust Issues

Welcome to this edition of the Sidley Antitrust and Competition Bulletin — thoughts on topics that are top of mind for Sidley’s global Antitrust and Competition team and why they may matter to you.

• The FTC settles with Corteva over pesticide loyalty program as both the FTC and DOJ announce initiatives with the USDA to address anticompetitive agricultural practices
• Paramount and state attorneys general settle lawsuit challenging Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery
• The FTC and Southern Glazer’s settle Robinson-Patman Act lawsuit
• Manhattan District Attorney announces launch of Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force
• European Commission Executive Vice President Ribera recently emphasized the need for timely enforcement in AI markets
• European Commission publishes ex-post study on the impact of mergers on innovation and markups

Read more on how this news can affect your business below....

---

FTC secures Corteva settlement over pesticide loyalty program as DOJ and FTC work with USDA to address anticompetitive conduct affecting agricultural inputs: On September 28, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed settlement with Corteva Inc., resolving a 2022 lawsuit brought by the FTC and 12 state attorneys general regarding Corteva’s pesticide loyalty rebate program. The lawsuit alleged that Corteva and Syngenta AG paid distributors rebates only if they sharply limited their sales of cheaper generic pesticides. Under the proposed 10-year settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing, Corteva must dismantle its pesticide rebate program. Corteva may no longer condition rebates on a distributor buying more than 50% of its requirements from Corteva or cap generic purchases below 50%, and it may not replace the rebate program with a volume-based substitute or retaliate against customers that deal with competitors. Corteva also agreed to pay the FTC’s partner states — California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin — $35 million. As part of the settlement, Corteva committed to using its reasonable best efforts to cooperate with the plaintiffs’ pending lawsuit against Syngenta.

On October 5, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an expanded memorandum of understanding (MoU) to broaden the agencies’ cooperation to address competition issues regarding agricultural inputs. And on October 8, the FTC and USDA issued a joint request for comment regarding potential anticompetitive conduct involving agricultural equipment. In support for the request for comment, the FTC cited its proposed settlements with Corteva and Deere & Co., the latter of which involved repair restrictions on agricultural equipment.

Why it matters: The Corteva proposed settlement demonstrates the FTC’s interest in resolving conduct cases with behavioral remedies. The expanded DOJ-USDA MoU and FTC-USDA request for comment indicate both federal antitrust agencies are focused on addressing anticompetitive practices affecting the agriculture industry.

---

Paramount and state attorneys general settle challenge to Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery: On September 21, 2026, Paramount Skydance Corporation and 12 state attorneys general announced the settlement of the states’ challenge to Paramount’s $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery. The lawsuit, filed one month after the DOJ had cleared the deal, alleged that the merger would reduce output and raise prices for films and television. The settlement requires Paramount to release at least 30 films a year, spend at least $1.5 billion on U.S. production, negotiate Paramount and Warner Bros. cable channel carriage separately, fund $47.5 million in worker training, and accept an independent monitor. If Paramount misses the film targets, that triggers a Miramax divestiture and per-film payments. Following court approval of the consent decree on September 30, the deal closed on October 6.

Why it matters: The settlement suggests that state attorneys general may be willing to resolve antitrust concerns arising out of large acquisitions through behavioral remedies, such as output and investment commitments. Companies evaluating proposed transactions should consider strategies for engaging with state antitrust enforcers on local priorities, such as jobs and economic effects.

---

FTC settles first Robinson-Patman Act case in a generation against the largest U.S. wine and spirits distributor: On October 2, the FTC and Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC (Southern Glazer’s) filed a proposed stipulated consent decree and order, settling the FTC’s Robinson-Patman Act case against Southern Glazer’s, which alleged that Southern Glazer’s charged independent retailers more than nearby chains for identical products without any cost justification. The proposed order, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, applies to sales to the five largest chain retailers in 26 states.

The FTC had alleged that Southern Glazer’s violated the Robinson-Patman Act by charging small, independent retailers higher prices than nearby large chains for the same wine and spirits. According to the complaint, the price differential was due to discounts and rebates given to large chains that were unavailable to independent retailers and not justified by differences in distribution costs.

The proposed order targets “paired” transactions, a practice whereby Southern Glazer’s would sell a product to a chain at one price while selling the same product to a nearby independent retailer at a significantly higher price. Under the proposed order, discrimination by Southern Glazer’s against an independent above a threshold tied to state-specific operating costs that recurs in excess of $5,000 over 12 months will be prohibited. The proposed order requires that an independent monitor be put in place for six years and will take effect only on court approval. Southern Glazer’s has not admitted wrongdoing and says it does not expect material changes to its pricing.

Why it matters: The settlement is the FTC’s first Robinson-Patman Act enforcement action in a generation. The order binds only Southern Glazer’s, but sellers that price differently to chains and independents should review their discount and rebate programs and whether cost differences support them to ensure compliance with the Robinson-Patman Act.

---

Manhattan DA announces Corporate Crime and Antitrust Task Force: On October 14, Manhattan District Attorney (DA) Alvin L. Bragg Jr. announced his office’s first task force devoted to complex investigations of corporate and executive misconduct, including antitrust violations and consumer fraud. Led by 40-year office veteran Matthew Bogdanos, who has significant experience prosecuting individuals and corporations in antitrust and other matters, the task force will have about five Assistant DAs and two investigative analysts. It will also draw on the office’s forensic accountants and its Financial Intelligence Unit, which conducts Financial Crimes Enforcement Network analysis.

Why it matters: The creation of an antitrust task force by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office represents the latest example of states assuming a more assertive and independent role in antitrust enforcement — now including criminal antitrust enforcement. Companies with significant New York City operations should review antitrust and consumer-fraud compliance, confirm that subpoena-response protocols account for a state criminal inquiry, and consider how cooperation with one authority could affect exposure to other authorities. The press release announcing the formation of the task force does not say which statutes or conduct will be prioritized, so early actions by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office will be instructive.

---

European Commission Executive Vice President Ribera emphasizes the need for timely enforcement in AI markets: As artificial intelligence (AI) develops rapidly, reports of cooperation among leading AI developers have raised competition concerns, highlighting the challenges regulators face in preserving competition in these fast-moving markets. Against this backdrop, on September 17, the European Commission (EC) Executive Vice President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition Teresa Ribera emphasized at Fordham’s 53rd Annual Conference that a key enforcement focus is to stop established digital players from extending their dominance into AI. Highlighting the need for fast intervention, Ribera pointed to two recent EC interventions concerning AI assistants. First was a decision under the Digital Markets Act where obligations were imposed on designated gatekeepers to ensure equal access to a mobile operating system. Second was the adoption of interim measures to preserve access to a messaging platform during an EU antitrust investigation. Ribera stressed that the focus on AI assistants was no coincidence, given their expected role as gateways to AI services. She emphasized that the EC will continue to pay attention to acquisitions of AI startups by dominant technology companies, including “killer acquisitions” that could eliminate future competitors. The EC’s revised Merger Guidelines, expected by the end of 2026, will provide guidance on assessing evolving market dynamics.

Why it matters: Ribera’s remarks underscore that AI is a priority for EU competition enforcement and signal the EC’s willingness to use the full range of enforcement tools to intervene early. Businesses active in AI markets may face heightened regulatory attention regarding platform access, market power, and acquisitions of nascent competitors.

---

EC publishes ex-post study on the impact of mergers on innovation and markups: On September 4, the EC published a study examining how a sample of mergers it reviewed and approved between 1990 and 2024 affected innovation and pricing power. The study finds that in the five years following a merger, innovation fell by around 18% for both merging companies and their competitors, while their profit margins over production costs increased by around 4% and 3%, respectively.

Why it matters: The study could inform the EC’s ongoing review of its Merger Guidelines and suggests that mergers may, on average, have weakened competition. The authors suggest that past EU merger enforcement may not have been sufficiently strict, although the study does not assess whether any particular merger should have been blocked. The study also suggests that market concentration alone may not be enough to assess a merger’s effect on innovation, particularly where the companies involved are major innovators. It also finds limited evidence that mergers in strategically important technologies generally lead to greater innovation while recognizing that individual mergers can still bring significant benefits. On the other hand, despite these findings, the EC has expressed determination to enhance European competitiveness, including by facilitating pro-competitive deals, so it will weigh the evidence in this study against its other priorities.