Recent US Antitrust Developments
Publications
October 2022
President Biden’s antitrust enforcement leadership arrived promising aggressive enforcement. Today, more than a year in, they are beginning to make good on that promise. In a recent speech at Georgetown University, Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, reported that the DOJ is “firing on all cylinders.” The DOJ has challenged or obtained abandonment of six mergers and, according to Kanter, has the largest number of pending civil antitrust lawsuits in the last 20 years. While the pace of merger enforcement at the FTC under Chair Lina Khan has not yet exceeded that of the final year of her predecessor, merger enforcement is up in 2022, and with several high-profile investigations pending, the expectation is for aggressive enforcement to continue. Below are notable developments in two merger enforcement actions.
Illumina/Grail Challenge Rejected by FTC Administrative Law Judge
The FTC’s administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the Commission’s challenge of the merger of Illumina and Grail. The FTC sought to block the $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail, a maker of early detection liquid biopsy test that can screen for multiple types of cancer in asymptomatic patients using DNA sequencing. Illumina is a provider of DNA sequencing for these multi-cancer early detection tests. The FTC alleged that the merged entity would have the incentive to disadvantage potential testing competitors by withholding or raising the cost of the DNA sequencing and as a result, the proposed acquisition would diminish innovation in the US market for such tests. The ALJ rejected this argument, another example of the government failing to prove harm in a vertical merger case, the most high-profile loss in recent memory being the DOJ’s failure to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The decision has been appealed to the Commission pursuant to FTC rules, and any final Commission decision may be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The FTC’s emphasis on protecting innovation is a theory of harm that will continue to be emphasized by the agency.
DOJ Challenges Merger of Two Residential Door Hardware Producers
On September 15, the Department of Justice sued to block ASSA ABLOY AB’s (ASSA ABLOY) proposed $4.3 billion acquisition of the Hardware and Home Improvement division of Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc (Spectrum). DOJ alleges that ASSA ABLOY and Spectrum are two of the three largest producers of residential door hardware, and that the transaction would result in anticompetitive harm in the form of higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, and poorer service in the sale of premium mechanical door hardware and smart locks. DOJ alleges that the transaction would give ASSA ABLOY a near-monopoly in premium mechanical door hardware and more than a 50% share in smart locks, leaving only one significant competitor. This theory focuses on the “unilateral effects” of the merger due to the elimination of a competitor, a theory of harm that will continue to play a prominent role in agency enforcement. Notably, the parties proposed to divest portions of ASSA ABLOY business units to remedy the transaction, but DOJ alleged that the proposed “divestitures would be insufficient to preserve the intensity of existing competition.”
この記事はThe Japan Practice Reportに掲載されました。The Japan Practice Reportを読む
Illumina/Grail Challenge Rejected by FTC Administrative Law Judge
The FTC’s administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the Commission’s challenge of the merger of Illumina and Grail. The FTC sought to block the $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail, a maker of early detection liquid biopsy test that can screen for multiple types of cancer in asymptomatic patients using DNA sequencing. Illumina is a provider of DNA sequencing for these multi-cancer early detection tests. The FTC alleged that the merged entity would have the incentive to disadvantage potential testing competitors by withholding or raising the cost of the DNA sequencing and as a result, the proposed acquisition would diminish innovation in the US market for such tests. The ALJ rejected this argument, another example of the government failing to prove harm in a vertical merger case, the most high-profile loss in recent memory being the DOJ’s failure to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The decision has been appealed to the Commission pursuant to FTC rules, and any final Commission decision may be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The FTC’s emphasis on protecting innovation is a theory of harm that will continue to be emphasized by the agency.
DOJ Challenges Merger of Two Residential Door Hardware Producers
On September 15, the Department of Justice sued to block ASSA ABLOY AB’s (ASSA ABLOY) proposed $4.3 billion acquisition of the Hardware and Home Improvement division of Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc (Spectrum). DOJ alleges that ASSA ABLOY and Spectrum are two of the three largest producers of residential door hardware, and that the transaction would result in anticompetitive harm in the form of higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, and poorer service in the sale of premium mechanical door hardware and smart locks. DOJ alleges that the transaction would give ASSA ABLOY a near-monopoly in premium mechanical door hardware and more than a 50% share in smart locks, leaving only one significant competitor. This theory focuses on the “unilateral effects” of the merger due to the elimination of a competitor, a theory of harm that will continue to play a prominent role in agency enforcement. Notably, the parties proposed to divest portions of ASSA ABLOY business units to remedy the transaction, but DOJ alleged that the proposed “divestitures would be insufficient to preserve the intensity of existing competition.”
この記事はThe Japan Practice Reportに掲載されました。The Japan Practice Reportを読む
Related Articles
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
October 2022
President Biden’s antitrust enforcement leadership arrived promising aggressive enforcement. Today, more than a year in, they are beginning to make good on that promise. In a recent speech at Georgetown University, Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, reported that the DOJ is “firing on all cylinders.” The DOJ has challenged or obtained abandonment of six mergers and, according to Kanter, has the largest number of pending civil antitrust lawsuits in the last 20 years. While the pace of merger enforcement at the FTC under Chair Lina Khan has not yet exceeded that of the final year of her predecessor, merger enforcement is up in 2022, and with several high-profile investigations pending, the expectation is for aggressive enforcement to continue. Below are notable developments in two merger enforcement actions.
Illumina/Grail Challenge Rejected by FTC Administrative Law Judge
The FTC’s administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the Commission’s challenge of the merger of Illumina and Grail. The FTC sought to block the $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail, a maker of early detection liquid biopsy test that can screen for multiple types of cancer in asymptomatic patients using DNA sequencing. Illumina is a provider of DNA sequencing for these multi-cancer early detection tests. The FTC alleged that the merged entity would have the incentive to disadvantage potential testing competitors by withholding or raising the cost of the DNA sequencing and as a result, the proposed acquisition would diminish innovation in the US market for such tests. The ALJ rejected this argument, another example of the government failing to prove harm in a vertical merger case, the most high-profile loss in recent memory being the DOJ’s failure to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The decision has been appealed to the Commission pursuant to FTC rules, and any final Commission decision may be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The FTC’s emphasis on protecting innovation is a theory of harm that will continue to be emphasized by the agency.
DOJ Challenges Merger of Two Residential Door Hardware Producers
On September 15, the Department of Justice sued to block ASSA ABLOY AB’s (ASSA ABLOY) proposed $4.3 billion acquisition of the Hardware and Home Improvement division of Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc (Spectrum). DOJ alleges that ASSA ABLOY and Spectrum are two of the three largest producers of residential door hardware, and that the transaction would result in anticompetitive harm in the form of higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, and poorer service in the sale of premium mechanical door hardware and smart locks. DOJ alleges that the transaction would give ASSA ABLOY a near-monopoly in premium mechanical door hardware and more than a 50% share in smart locks, leaving only one significant competitor. This theory focuses on the “unilateral effects” of the merger due to the elimination of a competitor, a theory of harm that will continue to play a prominent role in agency enforcement. Notably, the parties proposed to divest portions of ASSA ABLOY business units to remedy the transaction, but DOJ alleged that the proposed “divestitures would be insufficient to preserve the intensity of existing competition.”
この記事はThe Japan Practice Reportに掲載されました。The Japan Practice Reportを読む
Illumina/Grail Challenge Rejected by FTC Administrative Law Judge
The FTC’s administrative law judge (ALJ) rejected the Commission’s challenge of the merger of Illumina and Grail. The FTC sought to block the $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail, a maker of early detection liquid biopsy test that can screen for multiple types of cancer in asymptomatic patients using DNA sequencing. Illumina is a provider of DNA sequencing for these multi-cancer early detection tests. The FTC alleged that the merged entity would have the incentive to disadvantage potential testing competitors by withholding or raising the cost of the DNA sequencing and as a result, the proposed acquisition would diminish innovation in the US market for such tests. The ALJ rejected this argument, another example of the government failing to prove harm in a vertical merger case, the most high-profile loss in recent memory being the DOJ’s failure to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. The decision has been appealed to the Commission pursuant to FTC rules, and any final Commission decision may be appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals. The FTC’s emphasis on protecting innovation is a theory of harm that will continue to be emphasized by the agency.
DOJ Challenges Merger of Two Residential Door Hardware Producers
On September 15, the Department of Justice sued to block ASSA ABLOY AB’s (ASSA ABLOY) proposed $4.3 billion acquisition of the Hardware and Home Improvement division of Spectrum Brands Holdings Inc (Spectrum). DOJ alleges that ASSA ABLOY and Spectrum are two of the three largest producers of residential door hardware, and that the transaction would result in anticompetitive harm in the form of higher prices, lower quality, reduced innovation, and poorer service in the sale of premium mechanical door hardware and smart locks. DOJ alleges that the transaction would give ASSA ABLOY a near-monopoly in premium mechanical door hardware and more than a 50% share in smart locks, leaving only one significant competitor. This theory focuses on the “unilateral effects” of the merger due to the elimination of a competitor, a theory of harm that will continue to play a prominent role in agency enforcement. Notably, the parties proposed to divest portions of ASSA ABLOY business units to remedy the transaction, but DOJ alleged that the proposed “divestitures would be insufficient to preserve the intensity of existing competition.”
この記事はThe Japan Practice Reportに掲載されました。The Japan Practice Reportを読む
Related Articles
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026