June 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.

• Merger remedies are on the table in the U.S. again as both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) announce their first public settlements of proposed mergers.
• From 1 to 51 Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings? Colorado joins Washington with state-level premerger statute, with six additional bills pending across six state legislatures, including California (whose bill would create a new filing fee) and New York (whose bill would include numerous merger review regulatory innovations).
• FTC chairman goes on Steve Bannon’s podcast, reiterates concern over social media censorship; Andrew Ferguson tells “The War Room” co-host Natalie Winters that he intends to scrutinize whether social media companies conspired to censor online users and their political speech in the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election.
• The European Commission (Commission) imposed its first fines for a “no poach” arrangement. It also found that a minority shareholding in a competitor had provided a channel for market coordination between two companies.
• The Commission published report findings on the jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments within the EU highlighting significant obstacles faced by consumers in pursuing collective redress for cross-border claims.

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

The Return of remedies to U.S. antitrust enforcement. Federal antitrust agencies are signaling a calibrated return to structural remedies after a period of strong resistance to merger settlements in favor of litigation under the Biden administration. In two closely timed actions, FTC and DOJ respectively approved high-profile transactions — Synopsys’s $35 billion acquisition of Ansys and Keysight’s $1.5 billion purchase of Spirent — in both cases after negotiating a divestiture package of overlapping businesses as a condition to clearance.

In Synopsys/Ansys, FTC required the divestiture in three overlapping businesses to a preapproved buyer, Keysight Technologies. The settlement did not include the “prior approval” clause that had become common under the previous administration.

Meanwhile, DOJ’s Keysight/Spirent settlement required the divestiture of three Spirent business units representing about 40% of its revenue. The proposed final judgment includes a unique five-year “reopen” clause allowing DOJ to “re-open this proceeding to seek additional relief, including divestiture of additional assets.” That clause, interestingly, even seems to try to change the standard under which DOJ may seek additional remedies: “upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the proposed Final Judgment did not fully redress the violations alleged in the Complaint.”

Why it matters: Merger remedies are now apparently on the table, and that shift may have a substantial impact on what deals are possible and how practitioners will design their advocacy plans. Chairman Andrew Ferguson emphasized that only stand-alone, structural divestitures capable of fully restoring lost competition will be accepted. His comments echo those of DOJ’s Head of Merger Enforcement, whose speech following the Keysight settlement also emphasized the cleanliness of structural remedies. Ferguson promised a policy statement on the role of remedies in due course suggesting that these deals are not going to be “the last word” on this administration’s merger remedy policies. Nevertheless, deals once deterred by the threat of all-or-nothing litigation may now have a meaningful path to closing.

From 1 to 51 HSR filings? Colorado has become the second state to adopt a version of the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, following Washington. Effective August 6, 2025, Colorado’s statute closely resembles Washington’s but omits the latter’s specific healthcare provider notification trigger. California, New York, and several other states have pending proposals, many of which add to the list of unique requirements. California is the first to propose new filing fees ($1,000 or $500), while the New York bill follows the Uniform Act very loosely and includes a host of innovations, including seven categorical exemptions, and a 10-day worker-comment process.

Why it matters: This fragmentation of U.S. premerger regulatory review can be expected to add complexity and at least minor costs (for now) to multistate mergers. We will keep following as more states join Colorado and Washington. For further analysis on the earlier Washington statute, see our publication here.

FTC’s Ferguson brings competition scrutiny to social media and the 2024 presidential election: During a recent interview on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast (May 28, 2025, Episode 4519) FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson told co-host Natalie Winters that he intends to scrutinize whether social media companies conspired to censor online users and their political speech in the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election. During the conversation, Ferguson remarked, “The question that I think we need to figure out is: Were platforms agreeing amongst each other not to compete on free speech grounds?”

These comments follow public reporting that FTC is investigating whether at least a dozen advertising and advocacy organizations violated antitrust law by coordinating advertising boycotts. The comments also follow the May 21 closure of the public comment period on FTC’s “Request for Public Comment Regarding Technology Platform Censorship,” where FTC seeks “to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade ... users’ access to services based on the content of the users’ speech or their affiliations, including activities that take place outside the platform.”

Why it matters: These developments show the continuing FTC interest in the intersection of speech, social media and tech platforms, and antitrust law. Ferguson’s comments are also consistent with the spirit of DOJ’s “America First Antitrust Policy,” discussed in last month’s Bulletin. In announcing the policy, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater specifically called out “online platforms” that “play a critical role in our digital public square.”

Landmark Commission Decision targeting labor market restrictions and minority shareholdings in the online food delivery sector: On June 2, the Commission announced a cartel settlement decision fining two companies a total of €329 million for their participation in a cartel in the online food delivery sector. The decision marks significant firsts under EU competition rules by penalizing companies (i) for a no-poach agreement (i.e., an agreement restricting employee mobility between the competing companies) and (ii) for misusing a minority stake to facilitate a no-poach agreement, exchange commercially sensitive information, and coordinate market behavior.

Why it matters: In her remarks, Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera stressed “… once again that horizontal minority-ownership between competitors may raise risks if it facilitates anti-competitive conducts. Moving forward, we will continue to closely monitor potential anti-competitive business practices in consumer facing industries.” Additionally, she explained that the decision “shows that competition rules aren't just about keeping prices down. They also protect our freedom to choose, including where we want to work,” underscoring the Commission’s growing scrutiny of labor agreements.

Commission publishes findings on jurisdiction of EU courts & finds that burdens hinder collective redress: The Commission has published a report on the application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 determining which EU courts have jurisdiction to hear cross-border cases. Among other findings, it notes that plaintiffs in collective redress claims (such as those representing consumers) may face significant obstacles in establishing jurisdiction for cross-border cases. This report forms part of a broader review into the Regulation’s effectiveness across Member States.

Why it matters: The Commission’s report argues that while Regulation 1215/2012 has facilitated civil and commercial litigation within the EU, its framework is less effective when applied to collective redress mechanisms. This could be particularly relevant in the context of EU competition law, where cross border cases are common, and collective redress cases are a growing phenomenon. The Commission has announced a more detailed examination of this subject, which may lead to further facilitation of class-action style consumer cases in the EU, including for competition cases.