Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up – New Year, Continued Focus: DOJ Antitrust Division Reinforces Criminal Enforcement Priorities Amid Leadership Transition, While Targets Expand Globally

As 2026 unfolds, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division (Division) is entering a period of transition marked by leadership changes and a recalibration of enforcement priorities. Following the departure of Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, new leadership—now led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement—has signaled a renewed emphasis on criminal enforcement. This includes a particular focus on individual accountability, prison sentences, and expanded whistleblower incentives. While questions remain regarding the Division’s approach to merger enforcement, recent public remarks suggest that its cartel program is becoming more assertive and increasingly focused on deterrence.

The Division continues to prioritize procurement-related collusion, securing guilty pleas and bringing new charges through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), particularly in matters involving military and government spending. Some questions have been raised as to whether the DOJ’s creation of a new Fraud Unit, focused on crime impacting government purchasing, could lead to this work being subsumed by this new unit. At the same time, recent convictions in fraud and monopolization cases underscore a broader commitment to prosecuting individuals whose conduct threatens supply chains or relies on coercion and deception.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the Competition Bureau has highlighted both the efficiencies and potential competition concerns associated with algorithmic pricing, signaling continued scrutiny of data-driven pricing tools in a newly published report.

Globally, enforcement trends remain robust and, in some respects, increasingly divergent. European authorities are expanding cartel enforcement into new areas, including labor market restrictions, while continuing to pursue complex cross-border investigations and adopting a stricter approach to leniency. In Asia, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has imposed one of its largest fines in a price-fixing case, reflecting heightened scrutiny of essential consumer markets globally.

Explore these developments and more, in this edition of the Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up.

DOJ Antitrust Division Experiences Leadership Shift—but Doubles Down on Criminal Enforcement

Key Point: Despite leadership turnover, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division indicates it is intensifying its criminal focus—prioritizing individual prosecutions, prison sentences, and whistleblower incentives to accelerate cartel detection and deterrence.

After less than a year as head of the Division, Gail Slater resigned in February. Slater had previously served as an adviser to Vice President Vance and, in her role at the Division, oversaw several major antitrust cases against large technology companies. Omeed Assefi, who previously headed the Division’s criminal enforcement program, is now serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Assefi has selected Daniel Glad to serve as the Division’s lead criminal prosecutor. Mr. Glad delivered the keynote at the Global Competition Review’s Cartels Live conference in March. In his address, he made clear that the Division is “laser focused on individual accountability, including seeking significant prison sentences.” Speaking directly to defense counsel, Mr. Glad noted that “the practical takeaway is straightforward: if your client is an individual with exposure in a cartel case, prison is not just a theoretical risk. It is central to the Antitrust Division’s deterrence model.” Mr. Glad also highlighted the Division’s whistleblower program, noting that six months after introducing the program, the Division “announced the first-ever whistleblower reward, a $1 million payment to an individual whistleblower whose information led to criminal antitrust charges pertaining to a scheme involving bid rigging and ‘shill bidding[.]’” Glad also referenced the interplay between the whistleblower program and the leniency program, explaining that “[t]he race is now faster. . . . If a company learns of cartel conduct and treats it as a slow-moving internal matter . . . it is taking a risk that its own employees will make the first report. And if an employee reports first, the company’s ability to secure the benefits of leniency can evaporate quickly.”

Acting AAG Assefi, appearing by video, emphasized that the Division’s criminal program will not allow companies to merely pay fines for cartel violations, but will also prosecute and seek significant jail terms for involved executives. He likewise highlighted the risks for companies that do not act promptly in response to employee reports of possible cartel conduct, given the whistleblower program’s incentives for employees to report conduct to the Antitrust Division.

Canadian Competition Bureau Publishes Consultation Findings on Algorithmic Pricing

Key Point: The Competition Bureau’s report highlights both the efficiencies and potential competition risks associated with algorithmic pricing, signaling continued scrutiny of algorithm- and data-driven pricing practices.

Between June 10, 2025 and August 4, 2025, Canada’s Competition Bureau held a public consultation to better understand the use of algorithmic pricing tools across the Canadian economy and their implications for competition, consumers, and enforcement policy. On January 22, 2026, the Bureau published a report summarizing feedback from members of the general public, as well as submissions from stakeholders, including businesses, industry associations, consumer interest groups, and members of the academic and legal communities.

Individual respondents largely focused on consumer-facing concerns, including fairness, discrimination, price volatility, affordability, price gouging, and consumer data privacy. Many described algorithmic pricing systems as a “black box,” making it difficult for consumers to compare prices across competing sellers or understand how prices are determined. Respondents also pointed to potential impacts on prices for essential goods and services such as housing, transportation, and groceries, which some identified as particularly vulnerable to price increases. Individuals also flagged concerns about how algorithms collect and use consumer data to enable personalized pricing strategies.

Stakeholder submissions focused on the competition policy implications of algorithmic pricing, highlighting four themes. Respondents noted that algorithmic pricing can generate market efficiencies by enabling firms to respond quickly to changes in supply and demand and implement dynamic pricing strategies. At the same time, some cautioned that these tools may facilitate anticompetitive conduct, including coordinated pricing or tacit collusion. Others raised concerns about the transparency of pricing algorithms and the extensive data used to train them. Finally, respondents expressed differing views on whether additional regulatory oversight is necessary, with some advocating for stronger intervention and others urging caution to avoid stifling innovation.

The Bureau emphasized that the consultation is intended to inform its monitoring of algorithmic pricing and its potential impact on competition.

DOJ Delivers Fresh Convictions in Supply Chain and Competition Cases

Key Point: Recent convictions and sentencing actions highlight the DOJ’s continued focus on prosecuting individuals engaged in fraud, price-fixing, and coercive monopolization, particularly where conduct threatens critical supply chains or relies on intimidation and deception.

In early 2026, the DOJ secured significant criminal outcomes in two separate cases involving fraud and anticompetitive conduct. On January 15, 2026, Jasen Butler of Jupiter, Florida, was convicted on 34 felony counts, including wire fraud, money laundering, and forgery, in connection with a scheme targeting U.S. military fuel procurement. Butler submitted falsified and altered invoices to the Navy and Coast Guard, using aliases and fabricated employment records to conceal his conduct. Over a three-year period, he fraudulently obtained more than $4.5 million. Authorities emphasized the broader risks posed by such schemes, noting the potential impact on military readiness and taxpayer funds. On April 8, Jason Butler was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison.

Separately, on March 3, 2026, Roberto Garcia Villarreal was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment and fined $50,000 for his role in a conspiracy to monopolize the transmigrante forwarding agency industry. The scheme involved violence and intimidation to control a cross-border logistics market facilitating the transport of used goods from the United States through Mexico for resale in Central America. The case forms part of a broader enforcement effort, with multiple co-conspirators already convicted and additional defendants still at large. Together, these actions underscore the DOJ’s emphasis on individual accountability across both fraud and antitrust offenses.

DOJ Targets Executives and Military Cases in Latest Wave of Procurement Collusion Cases

Key Point: Recent guilty pleas and indictments underscore the Antitrust Division’s continued focus on bid-rigging affecting government procurement.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) announced several enforcement actions targeting bid-rigging and fraud in government contracting. Most recently, on February 26, a Florida commercial roofing executive pleaded guilty to conspiring to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids on commercial roofing projects in the United States. The conspirators agreed on pricing and terms, including who would provide an intentionally high bid, obtaining more than $3.5 million illegally.

On February 5, the president of a metal fabrication and manufacturing company pleaded guilty to conspiring to rig bids for government contracts affecting U.S. military installations, earning his company more than $8 million. For seven years, the conspirators coordinated rigged bid submissions by agreeing in advance who would submit the lowest pricing. The president faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine.

In a separate matter, a federal grand jury indicted a Maryland resident and owner of two information technology companies for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to defraud the federal government, including rigging bids for government IT contracts. The owner faces a maximum of 20 years in federal prison for each conspiracy and wire fraud charge as well as a maximum of 10 years for the major fraud charge, if convicted.

On March 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division announced that the owner of a storage sales company pleaded guilty to two felony counts—conspiracy to rig bids and conspiracy to defraud the United States—in connection with the sale of shelving and storage products to the U.S. Air Force for use in healthcare facilities.

According to court filings, the defendant and his co-conspirators coordinated bids for several projects at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, including a medical logistics warehouse, pharmacy modernization work, and veterinary and dental clinic projects. The conduct involved submitting intentionally higher, non-competitive bids, in some instances using pricing provided by a co-conspirator. The parties also took steps to conceal the arrangement, including rewriting bid documents prior to submission to a government contractor. The affected contracts were valued at over $1.6 million and funded through a Defense Logistics Agency program.

The focus on executives—rather than only corporate entities—signals the Division’s commitment to holding decision-makers accountable. As the PCSF enters its sixth year, these developments reinforce that bid-rigging and fraud affecting public funds remain a core enforcement priority, particularly where conduct impacts military installations or other government-funded projects.

Brazil: Enforcement Activity Signals Continued Focus on Bid-Rigging and Public Procurement

Key Point: Brazilian authorities continue to prioritize cartel enforcement in public procurement, with a particular focus on bid-rigging schemes affecting government contracts.

Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) remains active in investigating and prosecuting cartel conduct, particularly in sectors involving public procurement and infrastructure. Recent enforcement actions reflect a sustained focus on bid-rigging schemes that impact public spending, including coordinated conduct in tenders for government contracts.

CADE opened 27 cartel investigations in 2025 across a broad range of sectors and has pursued investigations into alleged collusion involving competitors coordinating bids, allocating contracts, and exchanging sensitive commercial information in public tenders. These cases often involve industries such as construction, logistics, and services tied to government projects.

These efforts were supported in part by 2025 enhancements to Brazil’s leniency and settlement frameworks. Speaking at the ABA Antitrust Section’s Spring Meeting, CADE councilor and incoming president Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes highlighted the authority’s continued efforts to refine its investigative tools to detect and prosecute cartel conduct. Gomes emphasized that leniency and settlement mechanisms remain central to uncovering increasingly sophisticated anticompetitive conduct, particularly where direct evidence is difficult to obtain.

At the same time, CADE has reinforced its coordination with criminal enforcement authorities, reflecting the dual administrative and criminal exposure that companies and individuals may face in Brazil for cartel conduct.

These developments underscore that companies operating in Brazil should ensure that compliance programs adequately address bid-rigging risks and information-sharing practices.

KFTC Imposes $283M Penalty on Sugar Price-Fixing Scheme

Key Point: Hefty penalties imposed on Korea’s three major sugar producers indicate increased efforts by the KFTC to tighten oversight of price-fixing practices.

On February 12, 2026, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) announced corrective orders and fines totaling approximately $283.5 million (408.3 billion won) against three major Korean sugar producers for colluding to fix sugar prices. CJ CheilJedang was fined 150 billion won while Samyang and TS received penalties of 130 billion won and 127 billion won, respectively. According to the KFTC, from February 2021 to April 2025, the companies coordinated six price increases and two price decreases by agreeing to raise supply prices quickly when raw sugar costs increased and delaying or limiting price reductions when costs fell. The KFTC found that executives at various levels met to coordinate pricing actions. After being indicted by prosecutors, the three companies said they would voluntarily cut prices of major sugar products. The fine marks the second-largest fine imposed by the KFTC in a collusion case. In addition, the KFTC ordered the sugar makers to report any price changes on their sugar products.

The penalties come amid broader efforts by the Lee Jae Myung administration to increase oversight of price-fixing practices, particularly in essential consumer food markets. Earlier in February, Lee praised prosecutors for indicting 52 executives on charges of price-fixing related to daily necessities such as flour, sugar and electricity. The KFTC’s recent enforcement actions and regulatory engagement with industry participants highlight a continued focus on pricing transparency and conduct. Companies operating in this industry in Korea should expect ongoing enforcement and heightened scrutiny in this area.

Cartel Enforcement Intensifies Across Europe, from Labor Markets to Leniency Crackdowns

Key Point: European competition authorities are expanding cartel enforcement across multiple fronts—targeting labor market restrictions, pursuing complex cross-border investigations, and taking a stricter approach to leniency—signaling a more aggressive and multifaceted approach to anti-collusion enforcement.

The European Commission is continuing its cartel investigation into fragrance manufacturers, even after the U.S. DOJ closed its parallel probe, highlighting divergent enforcement outcomes across jurisdictions. This reflects a broader trend of increasingly assertive cartel enforcement in the EU, even as U.S. authorities appear comparatively less active in pursuing large-scale corporate cases.

In March 2023, the European Commission carried out unannounced inspections (“dawn raids”) at the premises of several companies and an industry association active in the fragrance sector across multiple Member States. These inspections, accompanied by formal requests for information, were aimed at gathering evidence of potential anti-competitive coordination in the supply of fragrances and fragrance ingredients used in consumer products. A key procedural development followed in June 2024, when the Commission imposed a €15.9 million fine on International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) and its French affiliate for obstructing the investigation. The penalty resulted from an employee’s intentional deletion of WhatsApp messages exchanged with a competitor during the 2023 inspection. IFF acknowledged the conduct, cooperated with the Commission, and assisted in recovering the deleted messages, which led to the fine being set at 0.15 % of its total turnover. This decision marked the first time the Commission has fined a company for deleting electronic messages during an antitrust inspection.

In April 2025, the EU General Court upheld the legality of one of the 2023 inspection decisions, confirming that the Commission may conduct dawn raids on the basis of “reasonable grounds” derived from its own investigative work, without relying on a leniency application. The substantive cartel investigation is still ongoing. In the Netherlands, the ACM opened an investigation into suspected agreements between competing undertakings not to recruit or hire each other’s employees. According to public reports, the probe concerns possible “no-poach” agreements that may have limited employee mobility and restricted competition in the labor market. The ACM confirmed that the investigation is ongoing without disclosing the companies involved.

No-poach agreements—whereby companies agree not to approach or employ each other’s employees—are increasingly viewed by competition authorities as a form of cartel, due to their perceived ability to harm competition in labor markets.

If the ACM ultimately finds an infringement, the companies concerned could face significant fines. The investigation therefore marks an important development in Dutch enforcement practice and underscores the growing focus of competition authorities on safeguarding fair competition for employees.

In Austria, Austrian competition authorities secured a settlement with Strabag AG that increases its sanction for participating in a long-running construction cartel from €45.37 million to €146 million, after a court revoked the company’s leniency status due to a failure to cooperate fully.

Austria’s largest construction group, Strabag, was initially fined €45.37 million in October 2021, following a settlement and full cooperation under the Austrian leniency program for its participation in illegal price-fixing, market-sharing, and information-exchange practices in the building and civil engineering sector between 2002 and 2017. The leniency status at that time resulted in a substantially reduced penalty, reflecting Strabag’s acknowledgment of the infringement and its extensive cooperation with the Federal Competition Authority’s investigation.

Subsequently, new facts emerged suggesting that Strabag had not fully complied with its cooperation obligations under the leniency regime, as it had not disclosed evidence of collusion concerning three additional construction projects.

The Austrian Federal Competition Authority challenged the company’s leniency status, and the Supreme Cartel Court ordered the proceedings to be reopened and reassessed by the Cartel Court. This review ultimately led to a settlement increasing Strabag’s fine to €146 million—the highest cartel fine ever imposed in Austria—reflecting the revocation or significant reduction of its leniency benefit due to incomplete cooperation.

This example stresses the conditional nature of leniency and the possible consequences where cooperation requirements are not fully met.