Proving market realities is crucial in antitrust merger litigation

As shown in recent cases, parties successfully have fought off merger challenges in court when they can show that the government’s theoretical antitrust case is not supported by market realities. Demonstrating market realities is critical to both the government and the parties in antitrust merger litigation.

After taking the reins of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the respective heads of the Biden-era antitrust agencies promised to more aggressively investigate and block transactions based on theories that more “accurately reflect modern market realities” and capture “the rich complexity of the modern economy.” But, in some cases, the agencies vigorously pursued this aggressive strategy even where the market realities did not support their theories. This approach undoubtedly achieved the agencies’ desired goal of thwarting many transactions where the parties did not have the appetite or resources to engage in yearlong antitrust investigations followed by complex litigation and appeals. However, as shown in recent cases, parties successfully have fought off merger challenges in court when they can show that the government’s theoretical antitrust case is not supported by market realities. Demonstrating market realities is critical to both the government and the parties in antitrust merger litigation.

Read the full New York Law Journal article, "Proving market realities is crucial in antitrust merger litigation."