DOJ Antitrust Chief Rejects Old Frameworks—Opening the Door for Stronger Enforcement and Private Challenges

by Matthew P. Suzor and Samuel Indermaur

In a late-August commencement speech given at the Ohio State University Law School, Gail Slater, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, laid out the groundwork for a nascent antitrust enforcement initiative: “Comply with Care.” To expedite and administer penalties to entities in violation of antitrust law, “Comply with Care” establishes a task force within the Antitrust Division.

According to Slater, the “Comply with Care” initiative sprang out of a project led by two Front Office counsels, Alice Wang and Andrew Kline, who spoke with rank-and-file members across the Division to identify obstacles to the DOJ’s regulatory enforcement. As a result, the Division’s task force discovered inhibitory strategies used by big tech and law firms that stifle antitrust investigations.

One notable instance is in the case Epic Games v. Apple, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, among other things, that Apple’s prohibitive 30% commission on off-app purchases was anticompetitive, upholding the District Court’s decision. When asked to present records demonstrating compliance with the injunction, Apple, per Assistant Attorney General Slater, “engaged in delay tactics and privilege abuses, asserting privilege over more than a third of responsive documents.”

Furthermore, Apple’s Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, was found to have lied under oath. Slater attributes these “delay tactics” to loopholes and roadblocks Big Law firms leverage throughout the legal process to postpone antitrust action against their clients, ultimately prolonging anticompetitive behaviors, worsening labor market mobility, and inflating prices for consumers.

How will the DOJ take on Delay Tactics?

In actions complementary with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Antitrust Division has launched an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force that “advocates for the elimination of anticompetitive state and federal laws and regulations that undermine free market competition and harm consumers, workers, and businesses.” The Task Force empowers private citizens to speak up about anticompetitive behaviors anywhere they see. In an effort to increase civic engagement, the Task Force has opened a public inquiry to “identify unnecessary laws and regulations that raise the highest barriers to competition.”

Which Industries are Likely Targets for Antitrust Action?

Big Tech and Big Law are not the only industries being foregrounded by the Division. The DOJ is also closely monitoring anticompetitive practices in the housing, transportation, agriculture, healthcare, and energy sectors. In a departure from Biden-era antitrust policy, private equity (PE) firms, which were previously targeted by investigations into roll-up strategies and serial transactions, are no longer being singled out for predatory market behaviors. The agencies will instead treat PE firms like strategic buyers—those that purchase companies that they feel owning will strategically benefit existent operations—and will be given similar scrutiny to the aforementioned major industries.

What does DOJ Antitrust Enforcement look like in 2025?

Recent DOJ rhetoric also signals a pivot away from regulatory oversight towards a reliance on laissez-faire market-correcting forces. Indeed, in a March press release, the DOJ extolled free competition as “an opportunity to realize the American dream.” This sentiment mirrors the spirit of two recent executive orders, Executive Order 14192 and Executive Order 14219, which respectively aim to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people” and “review all regulations [that] impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship” in federal agencies.

To comply with these standards, the DOJ has reintroduced early terminations—a policy enabling parties in an acquisition to close their transaction before the end of the prescribed waiting period—with hopes of expediting the oversight process. Slater has also expressed a desire for “litigation over regulation,” signaling a more conservative, hands-off approach to antitrust enforcement.

As the DOJ and Trump Administration pursue antitrust investigations in industries with consolidated market power, it is reasonable to expect continued attacks on the most recognized corporations, especially those in Big Tech, while also anticipating the loosening of regulatory standards implemented by previous administrations to prevent monopolistic formation.

Miller Shah LLP’s Ongoing Advocacy in Antitrust and Labor Law

Miller Shah LLP continues to advocate for fair labor practices and challenges anticompetitive conduct across several industries. Our experience in complex antitrust litigation positions us to support workers seeking justice and equitable treatment.

A recent example of this work is the Norwegian Salmon antitrust case, in which the firm secured a $33 million settlement for clients impacted by price-fixing conspiracies. Miller Shah LLP also obtained an approximately $5.5 million class action settlement in the Seroquel Antitrust case against major pharmaceutical companies. These outcomes underscore the firm’s commitment to holding powerful entities accountable and promoting fair competition across diverse sectors.