Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up – Developments in Cartel Policies & Enforcement as 2025 Nears an End

As we near the conclusion of the first year of the second Trump administration, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division (Division) is touting its “America First” antitrust posture that favors streamlined reviews, targeted compliance oversight, and plans to modernize the leniency program. To date, criminal enforcement remains heavily focused on procurement fraud, though information-sharing and labor market collusion are still cited as priorities. However, the Division’s enforcement efforts may be hampered because it has been operating with significantly reduced attorney resources due to departures and hiring freezes.

Despite resource challenges, the Division announced an aggressive proposed settlement with revenue management company RealPage to resolve collusion concerns raised by its software tools that allegedly shared real-time rental rate data and offered recommendations on rental rates. The Division initially investigated the conduct as a criminal matter, but last year instead brought a civil lawsuit. Pursuant to the resolution, the company has agreed to change certain practices and submit to a corporate monitor, but has admitted no wrongdoing.

The Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) continues to deliver tangible results, most recently including a resolution involving a former seafood executive who pled guilty to participating in an $8 million price-fixing conspiracy in Florida. On the labor market front, the Division sought and obtained a lengthy prison sentence for a home healthcare executive (U.S. v Lopez).

But, on the other side of the ledger, the Division announced the closure of its investigation into a possible international cartel in the concrete industry. President Trump also pardoned the CEO of Oak View Group, whom the Division had indicted in July 2025 for allegedly rigging bids for the construction of an arena at the University of Texas. Although the two companies alleged to have rigged bids entered into non-prosecution agreements with the Division and paid $18.5 million in fines, the CEO was the only individual charged in the matter.

Globally, foreign competition authorities remain active. Canada, Poland, and Brazil are intensifying their focus on algorithmic pricing, information exchange, and market allocation. In Europe, regulators imposed fines for non-compliance with its investigative requests and had several decisions about its search and fine authority upheld, though narrowed. Australian authorities also levied a record fine for attempted price-fixing. Each of these demonstrates the growing momentum behind more stringent cartel enforcement at the international level.

These updates and more are featured in this latest edition of the Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up.

President Trump Revokes Biden Era Antitrust Executive Order; Division Prepares to Litigate Discovery Violations and Revamp the Leniency Program

Key Point: While many policy changes have been announced and the Division has signaled more changes are potentially coming (e.g., reform to the leniency program), one enforcement focus remains clear: the use of algorithmic pricing tools will face heightened scrutiny.

On August 13, 2025, after President Trump revoked President Biden’s July 2021 Executive Order about Promoting Competition in the American Economy, the Division issued a statement touting a recalibrated “America First Antitrust” philosophy that abandons regulatory micromanagement in favor of streamlined merger reviews (including the reinstatement of early terminations) and greater reliance on targeted consent decrees.

Two weeks later, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater announced the Antitrust Division’s new “Comply with Care” initiative, which will target litigation misconduct such as discovery abuses, overbroad privilege claims, and HSR filing violations. Perhaps signaling a shift from headline merger challenges, the Division’s focus on policing counsels’ “gamesmanship” foreshadows a more targeted enforcement strategy that dedicates staff and resources to litigating discovery issues rather than bringing new cases.

In addition, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi previewed “material changes” to the Division’s leniency program that will seek to modernize self-reporting incentives and compliance expectations. These potential changes parallel the Division’s new whistleblower program, another effort to increase the incentives for reporting antitrust violations. At the same time, AAG Slater emphasized that the Division will pursue tougher enforcement against algorithmic collusion and AI-driven price coordination, which underscores the Division’s efforts to apply traditional antitrust principles to an emerging digital market. Taken together, these developments suggest a strategic reorientation by the Division to ferret out cases in certain industries and areas of concern.

Procurement Collusion Strike Force Updates

Key Point: The PCSF continues to deliver tangible enforcement results across diverse sectors, signaling that bid-rigging and related conduct remain top priorities.

In September 2025, a federal grand jury in Denver indicted Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts, Inc., and three executives—Brian Firkins, Jeffrey Blasdel, and J.R. Antczak—for conspiring to import Chinese-made forklifts. Notably, although the investigation was led by the PCSF, the government did not charge a criminal antitrust violation. Rather, the indictment alleged conspiracy, wire fraud, and false statements, among other charges. According to the indictment, the named individuals disguised the forklifts as “Made in America,” falsified invoices to undervalue costs, and defrauded U.S. government agencies by evading more than $1 million in tariffs and falsely certifying compliance with the Buy America Act. If convicted, the individual defendants face up to 20 years’ imprisonment per count and substantial fines for both individuals and corporations.

In August 2025, a court sentenced Victor A. Garrido, a former NYC Department of Education business manager and owner of TranscendBS LLC, to six months in prison and to pay $141,511 in restitution after he pleaded guilty to submitting sham bids. The bid-rigging scheme allowed TranscendBS to win contracts from around 28 New York City schools and involved $707,555 worth of contracts, while his sentence included his admission of fraudulently collecting over $20,000 in COVID-19 unemployment benefits and failing to pay taxes.

These updates demonstrate that the PCSF continues to be active both in bringing new cases and convincing courts to impose jail time for violations.

RealPage Reaches Settlement with Division over Algorithmic Price-Fixing Claims

Key Point: After opening a criminal investigation that gave way to a civil complaint, the Division reached a proposed settlement with RealPage over allegations that its rent-setting software facilitated anticompetitive coordination that requires structural changes but includes no admission of wrongdoing.

On November 24, 2025, the Division announced that it had reached a settlement with RealPage, Inc. to resolve the civil lawsuit concerning whether the company’s revenue-management software enabled participating landlords to coordinate rental prices through the use of shared, nonpublic competitively sensitive data. As covered in previous editions, the Division had launched a criminal investigation into whether RealPage and, by extension, its customers used confidential lease and pricing data to generate algorithmic pricing recommendations designed to discourage rent reductions and harmonize pricing across competing rental properties. The Division ultimately closed its criminal investigation and opted for a civil lawsuit against the company.

Under the proposed settlement, RealPage does not admit to any wrongdoing, but it does agree to implement certain changes to its practices, such as not using competitors’ nonpublic, real-time data; limiting model training data to information that is more than 12 months old; refraining from using models with geographic resolutions narrower than the state level; removing features that aligned or constrained pricing; and restricting surveys and market-trend discussions. RealPage also must accept a court-appointed monitor and cooperate in the Division’s ongoing litigation against property management companies that used its software.

The settlement reflects both the Division’s intense focus on algorithmic coordination and information exchange, and the inherent challenges in investigating and prosecuting those claims.

Caught in the Trap: Vice President of Seafood Processing Center Pled Guilty to Price-Fixing

Key Point: The Division is partnering with other agencies to go after antitrust violations in a variety of industries.

On September 16, 2025, Dennis Dopico, a former vice president for a seafood processing center, pled guilty to conspiring with competitors to fix prices for the purchase of stone crab claws and spiny lobsters in Florida. Dopico admitted entering into a price-fixing conspiracy with four other competitors between 2023 and 2025 to fix the prices paid to fisherman for stone crab claws and spiny lobsters. Dopico sent text messages and called competitors to agree on set prices. In the plea agreement, Dopico admitted that the volume of commerce was approximately $8 million. The court set Dopico’s sentencing hearing for January 5, 2026.

When announcing this guilty plea, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi highlighted the Division’s cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and noted that the Division “will work tirelessly to ensure that hard working Americans are paid competitively for an honest day’s work.”

Executive Convicted for Labor Market Collusion Receives Lengthy Sentence and Significant Financial Penalties

Key Point: The Division sought and received significant penalties for the first executive convicted by a jury for conspiring to fix wages and related frauds.

On November 21, 2025, a federal court sentenced Eduardo “Eddie” Lopez, the former operator of several Las Vegas home-health staffing companies, to 40 months in federal prison and imposed a $550,000 criminal fine for leading a multiyear conspiracy to fix the wages of home-healthcare nurses and fraud related to the sale of his business. The court also ordered Lopez to pay $2,496,101 in criminal restitution to the defrauded purchaser of his home healthcare company and ordered the forfeiture of $10,459,000 he received from the sale of his business. As covered in previous editions of the QCC, Lopez coordinated with competing staffing companies to suppress nurse wages in the Las Vegas market between 2016 and 2019.

When announcing the sentence, AAG Slater highlighted that this was the first-ever criminal conviction for wage-fixing and that the magnitude of the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime. She also underscored the Division’s continued commitment to policing labor-market collusion and noted that this conduct will remain a top enforcement priority.

Federal Judge Allows Sugar Price-Fixing Claims Against ASR and United Sugar to Proceed

Key Point: Private plaintiffs continue to pursue alleged information-sharing schemes in commodity markets; DOJ continues to attempt to influence the evolution of the law in this area by intervening in private information-sharing cases

On October 15, 2025, a federal district court in Minnesota allowed price-fixing claims to proceed against ASR Group, the owner of Domino Sugar, and United Sugar, although the court did dismiss several other defendants from the litigation. These lawsuits, which were first filed in 2024 and consolidated in Minnesota, accuse major U.S. sugar producers of conspiring to raise granulated sugar prices by using a broker as a “clearinghouse” to exchange non-public pricing, production, and other sensitive competitive information. DOJ had been permitted to intervene in this private civil case, to state its view on the appropriate analysis of information-sharing conduct such as this.

The court held that consumers and commercial purchasers had plausibly alleged that ASR and United Sugar shared sensitive data with the intent to coordinate price increases, and that this resulted in a 70% increase in retail sugar prices between 2019 and 2024. Although recognizing that there may be alternative explanations for the price increases, the court determined that the allegations against ASR and United Sugar were sufficient to infer coordinated action by two of the defendants.

But at the same time, the court dismissed claims against Michigan Sugar and Louis Dreyfus Company after finding that the complaints failed to allege specific facts tying those companies to any unlawful agreement. The judge stressed that simply receiving marketplace information or knowing competitors’ pricing “is not the same as agreeing to fix prices.” However, the court also allowed plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaints against these defendants, which may allow them to resuscitate the dismissed claims.

Division Closes Criminal Investigation into Concrete Industry

Key Point: The Division has closed its criminal investigation into alleged collusion in the concrete industry, while related civil litigation and foreign probes continue.

On November 4, 2025, the Division informed the federal court overseeing private civil litigation alleging collusion in the concrete industry that it had closed its criminal investigation of the conduct. The Division intervened in the civil litigation in October 2024 to limit certain civil discovery in order to protect its ongoing criminal investigation.

The Division’s potential investigation of the concrete industry was revealed when international enforcers conducted dawn raids of certain companies in October 2023 and indicated that they had been in communication with the Division. The Division’s decision to close the investigation follows a similar decision by UK authorities in January 2025. Despite these closures, civil litigation in the U.S. remains ongoing, and criminal probes by the EU and Turkey appear to be continuing. These mixed results underscore the difficulty of multijurisdictional investigations and the few recent examples of international cartel enforcement.

Sweeping Antitrust Reform in Mexico Centralizes Control and Ushers in Tougher Penalties

Key Point: Mexico has replaced its independent competition regulators with a single authority, potentially marking a new era of tougher cartel fines and more aggressive enforcement.

On July 16, 2025, Mexico published a decree overhauling its competition framework and creating the National Antitrust Commission (Comisión Nacional Antimonopolio, or CNA), which assumed the functions of COFECE and the IFT. The reform—effective July 17, 2025—shifts competition enforcement from constitutionally autonomous bodies to a five-person commission within a decentralized agency within the Ministry of Economy.

The decree also raises penalties for antitrust violations, including an increase of the maximum fine for cartel conduct from 10% to 20% of an economic agent’s annual revenues. The reforms also shorten the merger-review timeline, broaden the basis for post-closing scrutiny, and enhance the agency’s investigative powers. The CNA now has additional tools at its disposal, including the ability to conduct inspections, carry out surveys, and collect data through a variety of new methods. Companies subject to Mexican competition law should reassess merger-filing strategies and update dawn-raid and compliance protocols to account for this new enforcement regime.

Canada – Rise in Leniency Applications as Enforcers Deploy Proactive “Knock-and-Talk” Tactics

Key point: The Canadian Competition Bureau is seeing a renewed increase in leniency and immunity applications for both domestic and international cartels, driven by a more assertive enforcement strategy featuring unannounced “knock and talks,” market letters, and field searches.

Pierre-Yves Guay, Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau’s Cartels Directorate in Canada, recently reported that leniency and immunity programs are “gaining strength” after a quiet period. Enforcement teams have intensified onsite engagement—visiting companies, conducting “knock and talks,” and issuing letters about marketplace concerns—which has led to a noticeable uptick in self-reporting. The Bureau is issuing “target letters” during knock-and-talk visits to instruct companies not to destroy evidence and is streamlining digital-evidence seizures to cope with terabytes of electronic data. However, critics warn that public-procurement exceptions to leniency for bid-riggers and the threat of follow-on private litigation make the leniency framework less attractive. But for the time being, the Bureau’s increasingly proactive enforcement posture—combining onsite engagement, quicker data handling, and closer coordination with prosecutors—appears to have reinvigorated cartel detection and generated a rise in Canadian leniency applications.

Brazil – Antitrust Enforcer Launches Probes into Amazon Rainforest Sustainability Agreement and Alleged Territorial Allocation and Information Exchanges in Fuel Distribution Sector

Key point: CADE, Brazil’s competition authority, has opened investigations into an alleged agreement not to buy soybeans produced on deforested land and separately into an agreement allegedly dividing regional fuel markets and exchanging commercially sensitive information.

CADE is investigating soybean exporters that signed the Soy Moratorium, a 2008 agreement through which exporters committed not to buy soybeans from newly deforested areas and limited purchases to beans produced on agricultural land that existed before 2008. CADE is concerned that this agreement harms soy bean exports and issued interim measures ordering companies to refrain from sharing competitively sensitive information, such as pricing and sales volume, regarding the sale, production, or purchase of soybeans. Although the agreement is co-signed by Brazil’s environment ministry, CADE is not conceding that environmental sustainability goals, even if supported by a sister government agency, protect companies from antitrust scrutiny.

CADE also initiated a market-allocation and information-exchange investigation against two of Brazil’s largest fuel distributors—Ipiranga and Vibra Energia (formerly Petrobras Distribuidora)—and two of their former executives. The agency alleges that both companies agreed not to expand outside their established regional strongholds, effectively partitioning the national fuel market and curbing competition. Investigators are also examining whether the former executives shared commercially sensitive information to maintain the alleged arrangement. The probe follows CADE’s September 2023 decision to close an earlier investigation involving Ipiranga, Vibra, and Raízen without finding infringements. The new case underscores the agency’s ongoing focus on collusion risks in the fuel-distribution sector, a market historically prone to allegations of regional allocation and price coordination.

EU – General Court Upholds Legality of Main Tire Cartel Probe but Annuls Michelin Inspection Decision for Lack of Indicia on Earlier Period

Key point: After confirming that the European Commission lawfully ordered an inspection at Michelin’s premises over suspected coordination of replacement-tire prices in the EEA, the General Court annulled the decision in part by finding that the Commission lacked sufficiently serious indicia to justify a review of the earlier time period.

On July 9, 2025 (Case T-188/24, Michelin v Commission), the General Court largely upheld the European Commission’s decision ordering an unannounced inspection at Michelin’s premises based on suspicions that Michelin and other major tire manufacturers coordinated prices for new replacement tires for cars and trucks in the EEA. Notably, the Commission’s investigation was based on public statements and “earnings calls” to signal future pricing intentions and strategies. The Court accepted that the Commission’s large-scale screening of hundreds of thousands of earnings-call transcripts and subsequent qualitative assessment yielded sufficiently serious indicia to justify investigating the “main period” of alleged coordination. However, they found no contemporaneous evidence for the earlier period mentioned in the inspection’s decision, and later references to that time in company statements were inadequate. As a result, the Court annulled the inspection decision only in so far as it covered that earlier period. The case underscores the importance of companies and counsel scrutinizing investigation decisions and the potential value of an appeal before a fining decision has been made.

EU – Commission Fines Eurofield/Unanime for Procedural Violation and Alchem for Collusion Involving an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient

Key points: The Commission fined Eurofield SAS and former parent Unanime Sport SAS approximately €172,000 for incomplete replies to an Article 18(3) request for information, and fined Alchem International €489,000 in the first-ever penalty involving an active pharmaceutical ingredient.

The European Commission reinforced its focus on procedural compliance in the synthetic turf investigation. After comparing the materials produced in response to a request for information with materials gathered during unannounced inspections, the Commission identified omissions in Eurofield’s response and followed up with a formal decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation 1/2003. After Eurofield’s second reply also proved incomplete, the Commission opened a procedural case and the company acknowledged liability. Eurofield subsequently submitted the omitted documents, as well as additional information, and accepted a sanction of 0.3% of the parties’ combined turnover, reduced by 30% for subsequent cooperation, for a total of around €172,000.

In a separate decision, the Commission fined Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. and its Hong Kong subsidiary €489,000 for their role in a single and continuous infringement in the European Economic Area from November 1, 2005 to February 12, 2018 concerning an essential input for the antispasmodic Buscopan and its generics. The investigation found that Alchem coordinated minimum sales prices, allocated quotas, and exchanged commercially sensitive information. Six other participants settled in October 2023 and received fines totaling €13.4 million, but Alchem opted not to settle, and the Commission proceeded under the standard procedure, issuing a Statement of Objections in June 2024. This is the Commission’s first cartel sanction in the pharmaceutical sector involving an active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Poland – Antitrust Watchdog Is Investigating Algorithmic Pricing Concerns in the Country’s Pharmaceutical Sectors

Key point: UOKiK, Poland’s competition authority, has raised concerns that automated pricing may enable tacit coordination or harm consumers.

Tomasz Chróstny, president of the UOKiK, recently revealed that a probe is underway into whether pharmaceutical companies may be employing automated systems to set or adjust prices in ways that disadvantage consumers or tacitly coordinate market behavior. This move is consistent with a broader trend among competition regulators across Europe and beyond to scrutinize how pricing algorithms might facilitate illicit information exchange or price-fixing.

This probe builds on the UOKiK’s history of investigating technology-enabled coordination among wholesalers in the pharmaceutical sector. In 2020, the authority raided premises of pharmaceutical wholesalers and software providers over suspicions that wholesalers used embedded software to monitor rivals’ discounts, margins, and pricing strategies, effectively enabling coordinated adjustments. In 2022, the authority opened a formal investigation. Those prior investigations demonstrate UOKiK’s willingness to inspect layers of technical information to assess antitrust compliance.

Italy – Record €936 Million Fines for Price Coordination on Biofuels by Major Oil Companies

Key point: AGCM, Italy’s competition authority, fined six leading oil companies a record €936 million for coordinating the price of the biofuel component in motor fuels between 2020 and 2023.

AGCM imposed fines exceeding €936 million on Eni, Esso, Ip, Q8, Saras, and Tamoil for coordinating the pricing of a bio-component in motor fuel. The investigation, which was triggered by a whistleblower complaint, found that these companies engaged in a concerted plan to set the value of the biofuel portion of fuel prices from January 2020 through June 2023. According to the AGCM, the companies exchanged information and enacted parallel price increases, which sharply raised the price of the component from about €20/m³ in 2019 to €60/m³ in 2023.

Eni immediately announced its intention to appeal, called the decision “incomprehensible and unfounded,” and argued that the authority misinterpreted legitimate competitive behavior.

This decision marks one of the largest antitrust penalties ever imposed in Italy’s energy sector and—at least pending the outcome of the appeal—reinforces the global trend of tougher antitrust enforcement in critical markets such as fuel and energy.

Australia – Court Upholds Record Fine for Attempted Price-Fixing and Coordination in Steel Market

Key point: Record fine in Australia (AU$ 57.5 million for BlueScope Steel and AU$ 500,000 for its former General Manager) highlights that even attempted collusion can trigger severe penalties.

ACCC, Australia’s competition authority, recently had a court affirm its authority to prosecute attempts to collude. The Full Federal Court upheld earlier rulings and confirmed that, between September 2013 and June 2014, BlueScope attempted to induce eight steel distributors to follow its recommended retail pricing list for flat steel products. As a result, a record AU$ 57.5 million penalty against BlueScope Steel, as well as an AU$500,000 fine against its former general manager, remains in place. The ACCC argued that this attempted cartel could have distorted competition, harmed customers, and inflated prices.