During the third quarter of 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“the Division”) continued to emphasize that longstanding Sherman Act principles apply with full force to conduct carried out through new technology. In remarks this quarter, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Daniel Glad distilled the Division’s message on algorithmic pricing into a straightforward compliance directive—know what data go into pricing tools and where the outputs go—and he urged companies that uncover potential misconduct to seek a leniency marker without waiting to complete an internal investigation. The Division backed that message with results, securing a jury conviction in a Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) bid-rigging case—what Glad described as the Division’s fourth consecutive criminal jury trial win—and obtaining the first guilty plea in a new investigation into bid rigging in the bovine artificial insemination industry.
Algorithmic pricing litigation also continued to develop on multiple fronts. In its long-running case against RealPage, Inc., the Division reached a proposed consent decree with another large landlord, while a federal court allowed a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general to press forward with their claims against RealPage and three landlords. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia secured additional settlements in its parallel case.
Internationally, competition authorities remained active across Asia, the Americas, and Europe. The Japan Fair Trade Commission sanctioned dozens of companies for rigging bids on condominium repair projects and raided the country’s four largest brewers in a criminal price‑fixing investigation, while authorities in Mexico and Brazil continued to penalize bid rigging in public procurement. In Europe, the UK Competition and Markets Authority sharpened its focus on bid rigging and imposed its first civil penalties on individuals for concealing evidence during an inspection, the European Commission fined Kingspan for providing misleading information in a merger review, and Switzerland moved closer to implementing its revised Cartel Act.
These developments and more are featured in this latest edition of the Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up.
Key Point: The Division continues to analyze algorithmic pricing through the lens of traditional Section 1 principles. Companies deploying pricing and revenue-management tools should build antitrust review into deployment and be prepared to move quickly—including by seeking a leniency marker—if potential misconduct surfaces.
On September 22, 2026, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement Daniel Glad delivered remarks at the 2026 Women’s White Collar Defense Association Conference in Chicago, returning to the antitrust risks of algorithmic pricing and revenue-management tools that he addressed in his May 2026 “Old Crime, New Code” remarks, as previously reported.
While Glad acknowledged the nuances of algorithmic pricing litigation, he offered companies a straightforward compliance mantra: “know what data go in, where the outputs go, and whether non-public competitor information is being pooled or fed back into pricing decision[s].” In practice, he explained, that means bringing antitrust compliance into the deployment of pricing and revenue‑management tools, documenting that review as it happens, and training the employees who use those tools. Glad cautioned that an AI governance process that addresses privacy, cybersecurity, and other risks but never asks the antitrust question is not enough.
Glad also discussed Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., a private civil case alleging that competing Atlantic City hotels used a common algorithmic pricing platform. As previously reported, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint in July of this year, finding the allegations were sufficient to state a claim because competitors provided current non-public pricing and occupancy data to a common platform, understood that their competitors were doing the same, and then followed the platform’s pricing recommendations at a very high rate. Glad was careful to cabin the decision’s significance, noting that it arose in a private civil case at the pleading stage, whereas the government must prove an agreement beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. Still, he emphasized that the Third Circuit applied familiar Sherman Act Section 1 principles—including the longstanding rule that a price can be fixed by agreement even if conspirators do not always adhere to it—to pricing arrangements implemented through new technology.
Because algorithmic pricing arrangements can involve engineers, data scientists, product managers, salespeople, vendors, and executives, no single employee may have the full picture. This dispersal, Glad noted, can widen the pool of people positioned to report potential misconduct, which makes the Division’s Leniency Policy and Whistleblower Rewards Program—the second focus of Glad’s remarks—especially relevant. Glad urged companies to seek a leniency marker at the first sign of potential wrongdoing, before completing an internal investigation, because each program creates its own “race to [the Division’s] door,” and information reaching the Division through one channel can change what remains available through the other.
Key Point: The Division continues to pursue bid rigging in public infrastructure and agricultural markets, and companies should ensure employees understand that coordinating bids with competitors can lead to criminal charges against both the company and the individuals involved.
On August 19, 2026, a federal jury in Oklahoma City convicted Sioux Erosion Control Inc., its part-owner and vice president BG Dale Biscoe, and estimator Randall David Shelton of violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix prices and rig bids for erosion control products and services. According to the indictment, the conspiracy targeted more than $100 million in publicly funded Oklahoma transportation construction contracts and ran from September 2017 to April 2023. Evidence presented at trial showed that the defendants and their competitors divided contracts by region and rigged bids by submitting intentionally high bids or declining to bid. The verdict follows guilty pleas by four other individuals in the same investigation, and Glad later cited it as the Division’s fourth consecutive criminal jury trial win. Individuals face up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine, and the corporation faces a fine of up to $100 million.
In another case, on August 6, 2026, the Division announced that Herbert Lutz, a South Carolina manager of a bovine artificial insemination firm, pleaded guilty to conspiring to rig bids for cattle purchased at auction from at least October 2018 to at least May 2024. According to court documents, competing firms agreed on which company would win in advance of the auctions, and Lutz’s employer acquired more than $1.6 million in cattle through the rigged sales. Lutz is the first defendant charged in the Division’s ongoing investigation into the industry, and he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
Key Point: Even as the Division resolves its claims through consent decrees, state enforcers are pressing ahead, signaling that algorithmic-pricing exposure for software vendors and their customers will outlast the federal case.
On August 23, 2024, the Division and eight state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust suit against RealPage, Inc.—a technology company that provides property management software to the real estate industry—in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that RealPage’s pricing software used non-public, competitively sensitive data from competing landlords to align rents. As previously reported, the plaintiffs amended their complaint in January 2025 to add six large landlords as defendants and settled with the first of them, Cortland. The Division has since reached settlements or proposed consent decrees with RealPage and four additional landlords—Greystar, LivCor, Willow Bridge, and, most recently, Pinnacle—leaving Camden Property Trust as its remaining landlord defendant.
On September 4, 2026, the Division filed a proposed consent decree with Pinnacle that, if approved, would require Pinnacle to stop using anticompetitive algorithms that rely on competitors’ sensitive data, refrain from sharing such information with competitors in the future, and stop attending RealPage-hosted landlord meetings. Pinnacle would also be required to cooperate against the remaining defendants and accept a court-appointed monitor if it uses an uncertified third-party pricing tool. The decree is subject to public comment under the Tunney Act.
As to the plaintiff states’ claims, Judge Osteen of the Middle District of North Carolina denied motions to dismiss filed by RealPage and landlords Camden, Pinnacle, and Willow Bridge in a September 30, 2026, opinion, holding that the federal settlements did not moot the states’ claims. A bipartisan coalition of nine states announced the ruling on October 2.
The Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia is also pursuing a parallel case against RealPage and 14 landlords, which it filed in November 2023—before the federal suit. On September 14, 2026, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb announced separate settlements with JBG Smith and Mid-America Apartments, requiring they pay a combined $9.3 million in civil penalties, payments to affected residents, and legal fees. Both landlords also agreed to stop using revenue-management software that relies on competitors’ non-public data and to stop sharing non‑public information with other landlords. These settlements bring the total number of settlements in the D.C. case to five.
Key Point: Competition authorities in Japan, Mexico, and Brazil are imposing substantial fines and launching new investigations into suspected price fixing and bid rigging, signaling heightened scrutiny across multiple industries.
In Japan, on September 28, 2026, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) found that 42 companies had engaged in bid rigging for large-scale condominium repair projects in the Kanto region. The sanctioned companies—40 construction contractors and two design consulting firms engaged by condominium management associations—coordinated to designate the winning bidders in advance. The JFTC issued cease-and-desist orders to 38 of the companies and imposed surcharges totaling approximately ¥1.64 billion on 37 of them.
On October 7, 2026, the JFTC also raided Japan’s four largest beer brewers—Asahi, Kirin, Sapporo, and Suntory Spirits—for suspected price fixing in violation of Japan’s Antimonopoly Act. The investigation reportedly centers on price increases that all four companies implemented in October 2022 and April 2025. The compulsory investigation, which targets companies controlling about 90% of Japan’s beer market, could lead to a criminal referral to prosecutors. Each brewer has stated that it intends to fully cooperate with the authorities. The raid follows a JFTC cartel investigation earlier this year into Japan’s major ice cream makers.
In Mexico, authorities continue to target horizontal collusion in healthcare procurement and the pharmaceutical industry. In June 2026, Mexico’s National Antimonopoly Commission (CNA) imposed fines totaling 59.6 million pesos on four companies and six individuals for exchanging sensitive information and coordinating bids in public tenders for X-ray materials between 2010 and 2016. The CNA emphasized that X-rays are a fundamental diagnostic tool and reiterated its commitment to sanctioning collusion in sectors where effective competition is necessary for public resources to serve their social purposes. This action follows earlier cases against cartels involving laboratory services and pharmaceutical distribution in which the CNA’s predecessor, the Federal Economic Competition Commission, imposed fines of approximately 626.5 million pesos and 903.5 million pesos, respectively.
In Brazil, the tribunal of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) unanimously convicted cleaning-service companies of bid rigging on October 7, 2026. CADE fined four cleaning-service companies and four individuals more than R$93 million (approximately US$18 million). The decision concluded a multi-year investigation into bid rigging affecting procurement by government institutions.
Key Point: The UK Competition and Markets Authority is sharpening its focus on bid rigging, the European Commission imposed a rare fine for providing misleading information during a merger review, and Switzerland’s revised Cartel Act is progressing toward implementation in 2027.
In the United Kingdom, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) signaled an increased focus on combating bid rigging in public procurement through enhanced detection capabilities and enforcement. In a September 8, 2026, blog post and accompanying policy paper, the CMA urged policymakers to prioritize the detection and deterrence of bid rigging and called for improved collection and sharing of standardized public procurement data to facilitate the use of analytical tools, including its in-house Bid Rigging Intelligence Tool (BRIT), to identify suspicious bidding patterns.
On September 24, 2026, the CMA announced fines totaling £50,000 against construction company M&J Group and two of its employees for concealing evidence during an inspection conducted as part of an ongoing bid-rigging investigation into 12 construction companies. This marks the CMA’s first civil penalties against individuals for concealing evidence during an investigation. At the direction of M&J’s estimating director, M&J’s office manager removed a work mobile phone and documents from the premises, and the director also falsely told CMA officers that he did not have a work mobile phone himself. Although the materials were returned that day, the CMA fined the company £25,000 and the estimating director and office manager £20,000 and £5,000, respectively. Together, these developments highlight the CMA’s emphasis on bid rigging and its willingness to impose penalties for obstruction.
In the European Union, on October 7, 2026, the European Commission (EC) announced that it had fined building materials manufacturer Kingspan €40 million for providing incorrect or misleading information during the EC’s 2021 review of Kingspan’s proposed acquisition of Trimo, which Kingspan abandoned in 2022. The EC identified four infringements of the EU Merger Regulation involving inaccurate or misleading information concerning product penetration rates, bidding data, board members’ involvement in strategic matters, and research and development activities, fining Kingspan €10 million for each infringement. Notably, this marks only the fourth time the EC has imposed fines for providing incorrect or misleading information in a merger review.
In Switzerland, the revised Cartel Act, adopted by the Swiss Parliament in December 2025, is expected to take effect in 2027; the consultation on the necessary amendments to its implementing ordinances closed on September 17, 2026. The revisions will introduce the EU-style Significant Impediment to Effective Competition (SIEC) test for merger review, strengthen private antitrust enforcement, and require the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO) to assess the competitive effects of agreements on a case-by-case basis. While the SIEC test will more closely align Swiss merger control with EU practice, the case-by-case assessment of hardcore agreements departs from the EU’s treatment of “by object” restrictions.
Leah Locascio, a law clerk in our Washington D.C. office, contributed to the writing of this article.