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.

• Stanley Woodward assumes authority to act as Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
• Federal Trade Commission holds workshop titled “Eleventh-Hour Antitrust Remedy Proposals and Litigating the Fix”
• Federal Trade Commission requires Ascension Divestitures to close its $3.9 billion acquisition of AmSurg
• European Commission continues enforcement against coordination through minority shareholdings
• European Commission publishes Annual Report on Competition Policy, the first such report under Executive Vice-President Ribera’s leadership
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce symposium examines modern pricing practices through both U.S. antitrust and consumer protection lenses

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

Stanley Woodward reportedly assumes authority to act as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division: As reported in the May Bulletin, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division has experienced continued leadership changes since the departure of Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater in February 2026. Media are now reporting that on June 9, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved a memo permitting Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward to exercise the authority as Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division. Before serving as Associate Attorney General of the United States, Woodward served as Counselor to the Attorney General and Senior Counselor to the President. He previously served in private practice.

Why it matters: Leadership changes can create uncertainty around the Antitrust Division’s enforcement direction, including the criteria, timeline, and process for enforcement decisions. Appointments of political and career leaders may also influence how the Antitrust Division approaches investigations, including merger reviews, settlement discussions, and litigation, particularly in the near term.

FTC’s “Eleventh-Hour Antitrust Remedy Proposals and Litigating the Fix” workshop: On May 20, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) hosted a workshop discussing how the Commission may approach merger remedies under current leadership.

Of note, the Commission is skeptical of late-stage or “eleventh-hour” remedy proposals that were not discussed during the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) review process, particularly where the proposals require the Commission to evaluate a modified transaction on a compressed litigation timeline.

Commissioner Mark Meador described “litigating the fix” as the practice of proposing remedies during litigation — after the HSR review period has closed and after the Commission has filed suit, requiring the Commission and the court to assess a modified transaction rather than the transaction as originally proposed — and emphasized that the FTC is seeking to restore predictability and procedural integrity to merger review while placing responsibility on merging parties to engage early and candidly.

Why it matters: The workshop suggests that the FTC is attempting to reestablish negotiated merger remedies after what current Commission leadership characterized as a more litigation-oriented approach under the prior administration. Parties should still expect FTC scrutiny, though the workshop suggests the FTC may be more receptive to parties that engage with staff early in the review process and less receptive to parties that hold proposed fixes in reserve for litigation.

FTC requires Ascension divestitures to close its $3.9 billion acquisition of AmSurg: The FTC announced a proposed consent order on June 2, requiring Ascension Health Alliance to divest several of its ambulatory surgical centers to close its $3.9 billion acquisition of ambulatory surgery provider AmSurg LLC. The proposed consent order settles the FTC’s allegations that the acquisition would limit competition for certain outpatient surgical services in designated metro areas, thus leading to higher surgery prices for patients and threatening to lower the quality of care and limit surgical innovation. In addition to requiring the sale of seven surgical centers, the proposed consent order also requires (i) Ascension and AmSurg to provide transition assistance for up to one year, to keep the divested facilities operational until they change hands, and to refrain from poaching employees from the divested facilities; (ii) the appointment of a monitor to ensure that Ascension and AmSurg are complying with their divestiture and transition obligations; and (iii) Ascension to provide prior notice to the FTC for any purchase of other ambulatory surgical centers in the designated metro areas for the next decade.

Why it matters: This consent order confirms the FTC’s willingness to resolve antitrust concerns through structural remedies and specifically exemplifies the kinds of structural remedies that the FTC might consider sufficient.

EC continues enforcement against coordination through minority shareholdings: On May 21, the European Commission (EC) sent Statements of Objections to several companies active in the synthetic turf sector. The allegations include anticompetitive collusion among some companies when jointly establishing an astroturf recycling company, GBN-AGR, in the Netherlands. The alleged collusion took the form of various noncompete, exclusivity, and price-fixing agreements with the aim of securing a stronger position for GBN-AGR to the exclusion of competitors.

The EC also alleged that Oranjewoud and Sports Group exchanged competitively sensitive information on pricing and capacity without safeguards and colluded to fix prices for certain turf recycling services in Germany during their discussions of a potential expansion of GBN-AGR into Germany and the cross-acquisition of minority interests in the respective turf recycling businesses.

Why it matters: This is the second recent example of EC antitrust enforcement involving coordinated behavior among competitors in the context of a minority shareholding. In 2025, the EC fined two of the largest food-delivery companies in Europe more than $380 million for coordinating their business. Then the EC found that Delivery Hero’s minority stake in Glovo had enabled collusion in the form of no-poach agreements and exchange of competitively sensitive information, which went beyond facilitating the business needs of Delivery Hero as a minority shareholder. Taken together, these cases demonstrate the importance of robust confidentiality and “clean-team” arrangements when negotiating potential acquisitions, including for a minority shareholding, among competitors or potential competitors.

The EC’s annual report on competition policy: On May 5, the EC published its first Competition Policy Report under Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera. Key themes:

• The EC is advancing an ambitious modernization and simplification agenda across the competition framework, including its review of the EU Merger Guidelines, review of the core antitrust procedural rules under Regulations 1/2003 and 773/2004, and the first review of the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
• EC competition policy is increasingly being used to support the EU’s competitiveness, resilience, and decarbonization objectives. Examples include the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework, which aims to facilitate investment in clean technologies and strategic industries, and the EC’s guidance letters in the automotive and electric port equipment sectors.
• Digital markets remained a central enforcement priority. The report highlights the distinct challenges posed by digital business models and market dynamics. In 2025, the EC continued antitrust enforcement in key digital sectors while moving beyond the initial implementation phase of the DMA through specification decisions, noncompliance investigations, and market investigations into cloud computing services, including assessments of whether additional services should be designated under the regime.

Why it matters: At the outset of her term, Executive Vice-President Ribera identified (in her mission letter) modernization, simplification, robust enforcement, and support for a clean, just, and competitive transition as key priorities for EU competition policy. The report shows that these objectives have shaped the EC’s work throughout 2025 while continuing to use its enforcement toolkit.

“What Price Is Right?,” a U.S. Chamber of Commerce symposium: In May, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a symposium examining modern pricing practices through both U.S. antitrust and consumer protection lenses. A central theme was that U.S. antitrust law is not designed to determine the “right” or “fair” price. Rather, it focuses on conduct that harms competition, including collusion, exclusion, market power, and predatory pricing. Speakers cautioned against reviving broad notions of fairness, including through Robinson-Patman Act enforcement, where protecting smaller businesses can sometimes raise consumer prices by discouraging strategies that benefit consumers.

In evaluating “fairness,” speakers also underscored the importance of distinguishing among types of individualized, dynamic, and algorithmic pricing. Unilateral dynamic pricing may raise fewer antitrust concerns than fully outsourced algorithmic pricing, particularly where competitors rely on the same algorithm or data system, which increases the risk of unlawful coordination.

On the consumer protection side, the speakers emphasized transparency and accurate information. Section 5 of the FTC Act and state laws prohibit unfair or deceptive conduct, but that does not necessarily create an affirmative legal standard of fair pricing. Hidden fees, junk fees, false urgency, and perpetual sales may be problematic because they impair informed consumer decision-making, but the speakers distinguished those practices from lawful price variation, warning that “fairness” alone is a moral judgment, not always a workable legal standard.

Why it matters: As pricing becomes more dynamic, data-driven, and individualized, both U.S. antitrust and consumer protection laws will continue to play a role. Antitrust law intervenes when pricing conduct reflects demonstrable harm to competition, whereas consumer protection law handles transparency, deception, and privacy concerns. That boundary will matter as state and federal agencies scrutinize algorithmic pricing and plaintiffs try to convert “unfair” pricing narratives into antitrust claims.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.