Quarterly Cartel Catch-Up: Division Refines Its Enforcement Agenda

During the second quarter of 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s (the “Division”) agenda included a series of significant policy announcements, enforcement actions, and litigation developments, as well as the nomination of a new leader for the Division, Adam Candeub. Following the Division’s recent decision to reinvigorate its Business Review Letter Program, the Division has continued to emphasize a practical enforcement philosophy centered on transparency during merger reviews, openness to structural remedies that fully resolve competitive concerns, and a willingness to litigate where necessary. At the same time, the Division has remained focused on industries affecting everyday consumers—including food, healthcare, and government procurement—and has continued to devote significant attention to algorithmic pricing, information-sharing arrangements, and international cartel enforcement.

This quarter, then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi outlined the Division’s evolving approach to merger enforcement, while then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a sweeping investigation into alleged anticompetitive conduct in the meatpacking industry. The Division also reaffirmed that algorithmic collusion remains a civil and criminal enforcement priority, brought its first major international cartel prosecution in years through a sweeping shipping container indictment, and continued its active enforcement efforts through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force. Private litigation continued to shape the antitrust cartel landscape, with new developments in the ongoing In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, and the Third Circuit’s recent opinion in a hotel rate fixing case.

Internationally, competition authorities remained equally active. Regulators continued to expand enforcement powers, pursue high-profile cartel investigations, and impose significant fines across multiple jurisdictions. At the same time, the Division’s ongoing investigation into the European automotive licensing negotiation group highlights an emerging divergence between U.S. and European approaches to collective patent licensing, creating new compliance considerations for multinational businesses.

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

Division Signals Criminal Reach for Algorithmic Collusion as Canadian RealPage Suit is Discontinued

Key Point: Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Daniel Glad restated the Division’s intention to curb algorithmic collusion through civil and criminal enforcement, with a particular focus on unlawful information sharing.

On May 14, 2026, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement Daniel Glad delivered remarks at the Antitrust West Coast Conference titled “Old Crime, New Code.” His remarks came after the Division’s November 2025 civil consent judgment with RealPage, which required the company to cease routing competitors’ competitively sensitive data into its software, among other requirements. Glad articulated that the Division’s central concern with algorithmic collusion is the “substitution of shared non-public competitive information for the independent decision-making that the antitrust laws require of competitors,” not algorithmic technology in general.

He stressed that the Division’s civil consent judgment with RealPage does not put “algorithmic conduct . . . beyond the reach of criminal antitrust enforcement.” Rather, where an agreement is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, “criminal charges are on the table.” Glad emphasized the risks associated with non-public data sharing, and noted that arrangements in which parties knowingly exchange sensitive non-public data can give rise to criminal enforcement and per se treatment.

This scrutiny of information sharing has been a feature of the Division’s recent enforcement. On May 7, the Antitrust Division filed a proposed settlement with Agri Stats, a data-sharing consultancy that had allegedly collected pricing, output, and cost information directly from meat processors’ accounting systems and redistributed that data back to the processors, conduct that allegedly reduced competition and enabled systematic price increases. Glad also spotlighted the Division’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force and Whistleblower Rewards Program, and echoed then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s recent call for whistleblowers.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order on April 1, 2026 discontinuing a proposed class action, filed in November 2024, that alleged RealPage and over a dozen corporate landlords used RealPage’s YieldStar pricing software to fix rents and restrict rental stock. The plaintiff moved to abandon the claim following Canada’s Competition Bureau dropping its own algorithmic-collusion probe into RealPage in November 2025.

Third Circuit Revives AI Algorithmic Pricing Class Action Against Atlantic City Casinos

Key Point: The Third Circuit’s decision reinforces that allegations involving AI-powered pricing algorithms and information sharing may be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, and further signals judicial willingness to allow discovery into whether algorithmic pricing tools facilitate unlawful coordination.

On July 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit restored a proposed antitrust class action alleging that several Atlantic City casino operators used an AI-powered revenue management platform to coordinate hotel room prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs allege that the casino operators provided Cendyn’s “Rainmaker” platform with competitively sensitive information, including real-time pricing and occupancy data, which the platform used to generate AI-assisted pricing recommendations that resulted in supracompetitive room rates.

The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and concluded that plaintiffs plausibly alleged an unlawful agreement and should be permitted to proceed to discovery. In doing so, the court emphasized that “AI software can facilitate collusion by enabling competitors to coordinate prices and share information without ever communicating with each other.” The panel reasoned that discovery would allow plaintiffs to develop technical evidence regarding how the Rainmaker platform functioned and whether it facilitated coordinated pricing.

The decision diverges from the Ninth Circuit’s August 2025 decision dismissing a similar challenge to the use of AI-powered pricing software by Las Vegas casino operators. The emerging split among the circuits highlights continuing uncertainty over how courts will analyze algorithmic pricing claims, particularly where competitors exchange non-public information through a common software platform.

The Third Circuit’s decision is the latest in a growing line of cases examining the antitrust implications of algorithmic pricing tools and information-sharing arrangements. Companies that rely on third-party pricing software—particularly where such software aggregates or utilizes competitors’ non-public data—should continue to evaluate their compliance programs and monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area of antitrust law.

Division Brings First Major International Cartel Prosecution in Years with Sweeping Shipping Container Indictment

Key Point: The Division’s superseding indictment of four Chinese container manufacturers and seven of their executives––its first major international cartel case in years––signals a renewed appetite for aggressive, extraterritorial cartel enforcement even as the current administration recalibrates its broader antitrust priorities.

On May 19, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California unsealed a superseding indictment charging four major shipping container manufacturers and seven executives with a multi-year conspiracy to restrict output and fix prices for standard dry containers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The four companies charged in the cases are Singamas Container Holdings Ltd., China International Marine Containers (Group) Co., Ltd. (CIMC), Shanghai Universal Logistics Equipment Co. — also known as Dong Fang Ltd. — and CXIC Group Containers Co., Ltd. Along with two unnamed co-conspirator companies, the six alleged conspirators together manufacture about 95% of the world’s standard dry containers. 

Filed under seal in January 2026, the indictment became public after French authorities arrested Singamas executive Vick Nam Hing Ma in Paris on April 14, 2026. Ma’s extradition is pending.

The alleged conspiracy began as early as November 2019 with companies agreeing to restrict output through measures such as limiting production hours, installing 87 surveillance cameras across 49 production lines, and creating a penalty fund for overproduction. By September 2020, the group allegedly allocated output restrictions to individual customers, and capped total production by September 2022. According to the allegations, the scheme roughly doubled container prices between 2019 and 2021, with CIMC’s profits growing from $19.8 million to $1.75 billion over that period.

Individual defendants face up to 10 years’ imprisonment and $1 million in fines. Corporate defendants face fines up to $100 million (both potentially doubled under alternative-fine provisions).

The case signals the Division’s renewed appetite for aggressive extraterritorial cartel enforcement, particularly against Chinese corporate defendants, using traditional per se theories rather than novel algorithmic-pricing approaches. For companies in concentrated, foreign-dominated markets, the indictment underscores continued scrutiny of competitor communications and document-retention practices, as well as the value of the Division’s leniency program for early self-reporting.

Acting Attorney General Blanche Announces Antitrust Investigations into Meatpacking Operations

Key Point: The announcement signals a high-level, cross-agency focus on competition in the meatpacking sector, with the DOJ citing high market concentration and plant closures as indicators of potential anticompetitive activity. The investigation aligns with the Division’s broader emphasis on food affordability.

On May 4, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice has been actively investigating potential antitrust violations in the U.S. cattle and beef markets. Blanche stated that “multiple plant closures across the country, the current market structure and high concentration in the industry indicate anticompetitive activity.” He was joined at the press conference by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro, underscoring the cross-agency nature of the effort. The investigation stems from President Trump’s Truth Social post last November directing the DOJ to investigate the nation’s largest meatpacking companies for potential collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation. Blanche noted that the DOJ has reviewed more than 3 million documents and contacted hundreds of ranchers, cattlemen, producers, and processors as part of the ongoing investigation.

According to the DOJ and USDA, four beef processors control more than 85% of the U.S. market, two of which are majority owned by foreign companies. Secretary Rollins noted that these four companies collectively own 70 subsidiaries and that the resulting consolidation reduces options for ranchers looking to sell their cattle, weakens their negotiating power, and strengthens the major processors’ market power. The Division also previewed its forthcoming settlement with Agri Stats, Inc., which also sought to address prices in the protein industry.

The announcement is consistent with Assefi’s recent remarks identifying food affordability as a key enforcement priority. Companies in the meatpacking and broader food production industries should take note of the administration’s willingness to deploy antitrust enforcement to address pricing concerns and market concentration across the supply chain.

Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) Secures Guilty Pleas for Bid Rigging and Kickbacks with Indictments for Fraud and Bribery

Key Point: Companies that contract with the federal government, in particular the Department of War, should continue efforts to ensure compliance with antitrust and procurement laws.

PCSF secured two guilty pleas and two indictments in connection with alleged anticompetitive conduct involving the Department of War and U.S. intelligence agencies.

In May 2026, PCSF announced that two defense contractors were arrested for allegedly orchestrating a bribery and major fraud conspiracy that corrupted the competitive procurement process for the U.S. Army Pacific Command’s Hawaii-Pacific Innovation Campus, a Department of War technology testing hub. The indictment, filed in Hawaii, alleges that two government contractors conspired to bribe a U.S. Army employee with approximately $1.25 million over five years and fraudulently inflated contracting costs to include the bribe payments. In addition, the indictment alleges that the co-conspirators funneled $680,000 of government money to their personal consulting business.

In June 2026, PCSF announced that a former employee of a storage distributor pleaded guilty to conspiring to rig bids in relation to the Department of War procurements for shelving and storage products in U.S. Air Force healthcare and operations facilities. The plea indicated that the defendant and co-conspirators exchanged price information, at times instructing each other exactly what to quote, prior to submitting collusive bids for healthcare facilities projects at Air Force Base Nellis in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Later in June 2026, PCSF also announced that a former intelligence community contractor pleaded guilty to soliciting and accepting kickbacks totaling at least $510,000 in exchange for government contracts for millions of dollars of hardware and software for U.S. intelligence agencies. According to the plea, the conspiracy lasted from June 2018 to April 2024. 

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Daniel W. Glad emphasized in relation to these investigations that “[t]he Antitrust Division and its partners in the [PCSF] will vigorously prosecute those that seek to profit at the expense of American taxpayers.”

Division Engages with EU Over Automotive Patent Licensing Group Concerns

Key Point: A transatlantic divergence is emerging over the permissibility of collective patent licensing negotiations. The Division is investigating alleged horizontal collusive conduct that the EU has expressly approved, which creates potential compliance challenges for multinational companies.

Last year, the European Commission issued a “Comfort Letter” to an Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group (ALNG), which effectively permitted the group to collectively negotiate IP licenses for participating European automobile manufacturers. The goal of the arrangement is to position the ALNG as the sole European buyer, thereby reducing licensing payments for technologies such as in-vehicle 5G and Wi-Fi.

The Division has taken a contrary position and indicated that the ALNG structure would likely violate U.S. antitrust laws. The Division has issued civil investigative demands to the ALNG’s members, including BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Thyssenkrupp. Dina Kallay, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for International Policy and Appellate, confirmed that the Division is “definitely engaging with our colleagues on these issues” after previously characterized the EU’s guidance to carmakers as “surprising,” “unusual,” and “unfortunate” on the basis that it appeared to approve of buyer cartels. Kallay has noted that buyer cartels are as illegal as seller cartels under U.S. law.

A top antitrust European Commission official, Linsey McCallum, defended the approval and stated “We know a buyers’ cartel when we see it,” and pushed back on the monopsony characterization. On April 16, 2026, the EU issued new antitrust guidelines creating a safe harbor for licensing negotiation groups (LNGs) that conform to specified conditions, further legitimizing the arrangement. The divergence between the U.S. and EU approaches creates potential compliance challenges for multinational companies participating in these structures and bears watching as the Division’s investigation progresses.

Major Healthcare Company Joins Ongoing Multidistrict Litigation Regarding Algorithmic Pricing Tools

Key Point: Lifepoint, a major healthcare provider, filed a new direct member suit against Claritev as part of an ongoing multidistrict litigation pertaining to the use of algorithmic tools for common pricing.  

On June 2, 2026, plaintiff Lifepoint Corporate Services filed a short-form complaint against defendant Claritev (formerly MultiPlan) and several other insurer defendants in the Northern District of Illinois as part of an ongoing multidistrict litigation in In re Multiplan Health Insurance Provider Litigation. Plaintiff Lifepoint is a hospital system with 135 hospitals nationwide and 55,000 healthcare staff, and defendant Claritev is a healthcare data firm that processes more than 80% of out-of-network claims nationwide. Lifepoint’s complaint alleges that Claritev colluded with health insurance companies by using an algorithmic common pricing system to systematically lower reimbursement rates for out-of-network services. According to Lifepoint, it would have received “tens of millions of dollars” more in payments absent Claritev’s pricing tool. 

The ongoing multidistrict litigation and Lifepoint’s most recent participation makes this a case to watch. On March 27, 2025, the Division notably submitted a statement of interest in support of plaintiffs that argued that the joint use of a common pricing algorithm to set prices can constitute a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, on June 24, 2026, the district judge rejected defendants’ “unclean hands” arguments that plaintiffs’ claims were barred because of improper billing practices. 

The case’s development continues to reveal how algorithmic technologies might affect and shape common pricing claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Global Competition Authorities Issue Record Fines

Key Point: Last quarter, international antitrust enforcement authorities slammed companies across several industries with multimillion-dollar fines.

In Romania, the Competition Council fined several banks an unprecedented total of 710 million euros for violations of domestic and international law by colluding to set interbank interest rates. The agency head underscored the importance of the interbank rate and stated that even a small variation can have significant financial effects. The fine is set to be appealed.

In Brazil, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), an antitrust watchdog, fined Japanese auto supplier Denso nearly $20 million for cartel violations over an eight-year period. CADE also recommended fines for four global car manufacturers: BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche on grounds that the companies conspired to restrict innovation. An investigation is also underway into several companies and individuals accused of dominating the prison bread market. The potential fines in this case are also steep: up to 20% of gross annual revenue for businesses and up to $387 million for individuals. 

The European Union recently announced Statements of Objections and charges against a group of synthetic turf makers. The companies are accused of colluding to restrict competition since 2019 and, if found guilty, could face a fine reaching 10% of their global annual turnover.

In India, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) charged four truck associations with fixing freight transportation rates and excluding competition. The companies have not yet provided their financial details to CCI; once they do, an appropriate penalty will be assessed and enforced.

In Italy, competition authorities fined three major private label snack producers over $8.5 million each for agreeing to restrict competition. However, the authorities have allowed the companies to participate in leniency programs to reduce the size of their fines. Several major construction material businesses are also under investigation for price fixing to benefit from a government tax break. At least one of the companies involved denies any wrongdoing. The investigation will conclude in December 2027.

International Policy & Regulatory Updates

Key Point: International antitrust regimes across Egypt, the UAE, and Hong Kong are at various stages of moving to sharpen antitrust enforcement: expanding fining powers, pursuing criminal referrals, and weighing criminal penalties, signaling a broader global push toward cartel deterrence.

Egypt

In April 2026, Egypt’s House of Representatives approved government-drafted amendments to the Competition Protection and Anti-Monopoly Practices Law, which are set to replace much of the 2005 framework and enhance the power of the Egyptian Competition Authority (ECA) to investigate and penalize anticompetitive behavior. The amendments give the ECA enhanced investigative powers and allow the ECA to issue fines independently of criminal proceedings. They also elevate the ECA’s legal status under Article 215 of Egypt’s constitution by granting it full technical, administrative, and financial independence alongside institutions like the Central Bank of Egypt. The reforms are set to bring Egypt’s competition law in line with other jurisdictions in the Middle East and North Africa region. The bill still awaits presidential sign-off and will take effect three months after that approval.

UAE

In April 2026, the UAE’s Ministry of Economy and Tourism referred a poultry cartel case to the Federal Public Prosecution, in what appears to be the country’s first public referral of a cartel case since its competition regime was reformed in 2023. The ministry said evidence had confirmed that the group coordinated to fix and manipulate poultry prices and raise them without justification, in clear violation of both competition law and consumer protection law. Poultry is one of nine essential consumer goods subject to strict pricing controls under Cabinet Resolution No. 120 of 2022, meaning businesses cannot raise prices of the goods without prior ministry approval. The referral follows a sharp escalation in inspections: more than 15,000 visits conducted nationwide between February and April 2026 turned up 312 violations and 1,005 warnings. The ministry said it would keep monitoring pricing trends and pursuing administrative penalties, fines, and prosecutorial referrals where warranted, which signals that this referral might not be a one-off.

Hong Kong

In a June 5, 2026, media briefing, Hong Kong’s Competition Commission chairperson Jat Sew-tong announced plans to amend the Competition Ordinance to criminalize bid rigging, with a proposed maximum penalty of seven years in prison. Bid rigging is currently only a civil violation under Hong Kong’s Competition Ordinance, punishable by fine, and the Commission hopes to table the amendment by the end of the year. The push follows the November 2025 Wang Fuk Court fire in Tai Po, which has made bid rigging in the construction industry a top enforcement priority for the Commission. Chairperson Jat Sew-tong said that recent investigations had revealed triad involvement in rigging bids for many large-scale maintenance projects. However, because the Commission lacks prosecutorial authority, it can only transfer those cases to law enforcement.