April 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 U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission continue labor market scrutiny, focusing on noncompete agreements and talent-focused transactions
• The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation arguing that information exchanges can be unlawful under ordinary rule-of-reason principles without individualized data or direct econometric evidence of price effects
• State Attorneys General continue to signal a willingness to act independently of federal enforcers
• The European Commission hired a new Director-General of Directorate-General Competition
• The European Commission published feedback on draft joint guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act and General Data Protection Regulation

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

---

DOJ and FTC highlight ongoing scrutiny of noncompetes and talent-driven deals: Speaking at a luncheon, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials outlined a “principled,” case-by-case approach to evaluating noncompete agreements, emphasizing that enforcement will turn on competitive effects rather than categorical rules. As discussed here, the remarks reflect the agency’s shift away from a blanket prohibition toward a more context-driven framework that considers factors such as worker role, access to sensitive information, and the scope of the restriction.

The officials continued to focus on labor markets when they spoke of the agencies’ treatment of “reverse acquihire” transactions — transactions involving firms that obtain talent or intellectual property without acquiring the business entity itself. In January, the FTC identified such deals as a potential concern, and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership has since similarly signaled that reverse acquihires are a priority area for scrutiny, particularly where they may consolidate talent or intellectual property while avoiding traditional merger review.

Why it matters: The agencies’ focus on noncompetes and talent-focused transactions underscores that labor market effects continue to be front and center in both enforcement and litigation risk, with outcomes likely to turn on the specific facts and the strength of any business justification. The FTC’s recent launch of a Joint Labor Task Force further reflects this priority, signaling a more coordinated and aggressive approach to policing alleged anticompetitive conduct in labor markets. At the same time, recent court decisions show there are real limits to how far labor-based antitrust theories can go, particularly where plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege competitive harm. Taken together, this points to continued scrutiny from regulators and plaintiffs with courts continuing to define the contours of labor-based antitrust claims.

---

DOJ files statement of interest in turkey antitrust litigation: On March 25, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in In re Turkey Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill.), which involves allegations that turkey producers conspired and exchanged competitively sensitive information to restrict supply and fix prices. In its statement, DOJ argued that agreements among competitors remain horizontal based on the nature of the restraint, even where vertical relationships exist. The statement also contends that information-exchange claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act are not subject to heightened burdens or presumptions of legality, are not limited to individualized data, and do not require direct econometric proof of marketwide effects.

Why it matters: As detailed in a previous edition, in 2023, the DOJ and FTC announced the withdrawal of prior guidance identifying “safety zones” for certain information exchanges as outdated and overly permissive. Consistent with that shift, the DOJ’s statement contends that information-exchange claims under Section 1 are not subject to an elevated burden of proof and do not carry a presumption of lawfulness. It also shows that the DOJ is continuing to invest resources on information exchange issues. As noted in last month’s Bulletin, the DOJ and FTC recently requested public comments on their inquiry for consideration of new guidance for competitor collaborations, which is expected to provide new guidelines for information exchanges. On April 17, the agencies extended the deadline for submitting such comments to May 21, 2026.

---

States taking growing role in antitrust enforcement: On March 25, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser remarked at the American Bar Association Antitrust Spring Meeting that state Attorneys General (AGs) are prepared to pursue merger challenges and litigate independently of federal enforcers. To date, there have been at least three instances under the current administration where state AGs have pursued an enforcement action after the federal agencies either declined to do so or reached a settlement. As Weiser put it, “The message to companies facing antitrust issues is simple: [E]ven if the DOJ won’t enforce the antitrust laws effectively, the states are ready and able to do so.” He emphasized that states “have a vigilant commitment” to make decisions on the merits, regardless of how the DOJ handles a case. He also called for greater investment in state enforcement capacity, including stronger multistate collaboration and effective work with the private bar, plaintiffs’ lawyers, and private attorneys general, and pointed to growing state access to Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings as a valuable tool. He noted, however, that HSR timing protections, including the waiting period for closing, apply only to federal agencies, limiting states’ ability to delay transactions during review.

Why it matters: These remarks and recent win at trial, echoed by the Illinois AG’s office a day later at the same event (as well as by other state AGs in public comments), signal that state AGs are increasingly willing to make independent antitrust enforcement judgments rather than defer to federal enforcers. States may pursue merger challenges and other enforcement actions even after federal approval or settlement where they believe competitive harms remain, particularly in matters affecting local markets and consumers. Taken together, these developments reflect that state officials are already stepping in to fill perceived gaps in federal enforcement, reinforcing the likelihood of parallel or follow-on state action.

---

European Commission appoints Anthony Whelan as Director-General of DG COMP: On April 13, the European Commission (EC) announced the appointment of Anthony Whelan as Director-General of Directorate-General Competition (DG COMP). Whelan succeeds Olivier Guersent (who retired in August 2025 after a long DG COMP career), ending an extended interim period at the top of the directorate. Whelan is an EC veteran, having served across a variety of posts, including at the Court of Justice and the Commission Legal Service, before a stint in Neelie Kroes’s competition and digital cabinets. He then later advised President Ursula von der Leyen on digital, competition, and economic affairs from 2019 to 2025 and was most recently Deputy Director-General for state aid at DG COMP.

Why it matters: Whelan will lead the department responsible for competition policy in the European Union (EU) and for enforcing EU antitrust, merger, and state aid rules. The immediate policy signal is continuity with a stronger competitiveness overlay. His schedule includes steering the final stages of the merger-guidelines review (which is expressly examining innovation, efficiencies, resilience, investment intensity, and strategic sectors, among other topics) while maintaining firm digital enforcement amid pressure from Washington and certain EU member states.

---

EC and EDPB publish consultation feedback on draft DMA-GDPR interplay guidelines: On March 12, the EC and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published over 100 submissions on the draft joint guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The GDPR is the EU’s comprehensive privacy framework for personal data processing. The DMA is the EU’s regime for the largest digital platforms that complements EU competition rules by regulating designated “gatekeepers” to promote contestable and fair digital markets.

The draft guidelines (published for consultation in October 2025) emphasise that the two regimes should be applied coherently and caution against “instrumentalizing” GDPR compliance to dilute DMA obligations. The guidelines focus on the main DMA-GDPR touchpoints, notably obtaining valid user consent for certain cross-service data use, enabling end users to transfer data generated while using the gatekeeper’s platform, enabling business users with certain access to data, sharing search-related data in anonymised form, implementing interoperability while respecting data minimization, and coordinating between the EC and data protection authorities. Stakeholders broadly support this cross-regulatory dialogue while calling for more operational guidance.

Why it matters: The final guidelines, expected in Q4 2026, are likely to shape how “gatekeepers” under the DMA will design consent mechanisms, implement data-access interfaces (including application programming interfaces), and apply anonymization in data sharing, raising the stakes for parallel DMA-GDPR scrutiny and more coordinated enforcement, including aligned remedies in data-driven cases.