📅 2026 Update: Changes in US Antitrust Laws and Enforcement

Since the original article was published, there have been important updates in US antitrust laws and enforcement practices. Key changes include revised guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and updates to filing fees. Readers can find the original article further down the page for more foundational information.

⚖️ Recent FTC Guidelines

In July 2025, the FTC revised its memo outlining its investigative and enforcement powers under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act. This update aims to clarify the agency's approach to antitrust enforcement and streamline how businesses can comply with existing laws.

💰 Current Filing Fees

As of October 2026, the filing fee for premerger notifications under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act is $280,000. This reflects an increase from earlier fees and highlights the financial implications for businesses planning mergers or acquisitions.

🔍 Investigative Authority

The FTC has broad authority to investigate any organization or business conduct affecting commerce. This includes the ability to gather information on partnerships and corporations, excluding banks and certain other entities. Understanding this authority can help businesses prepare for potential investigations.

📅 HSR Review Period

The review period for HSR Act filings remains set at 30 days. This period may be extended if additional information is requested by the FTC or DOJ. Companies should plan accordingly to avoid delays in their merger or acquisition processes.

📌 Key Points Summary

  • ⚖️ FTC revised guidelines enhance clarity on enforcement.
  • 💰 HSR filing fee is now $280,000 as of October 2026.
  • 🔍 FTC has broad authority to investigate businesses.
  • 📅 HSR review period remains 30 days with possible extensions.

💡 Tips for Understanding Antitrust Laws

It is important to go over the details of your own situation with your attorney.

📄 Understand Premerger Notifications

Companies must file premerger notifications with the FTC and DOJ under Section 7A of the Clayton Act. This is essential for any large merger or acquisition that meets jurisdictional thresholds.

⏳ Be Aware of Filing Deadlines

Businesses need to file premerger notifications at least 30 days before finalizing a merger or acquisition. This ensures compliance with the HSR Act and avoids legal complications.

⚠️ Know the Penalties for Violations

Violating antitrust laws can lead to severe penalties. Criminal violations of the Sherman Act can result in fines up to $100 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, along with possible prison time.

📞 Utilize FTC Guidance

The FTC offers advisory opinions on proposed conduct, helping businesses understand how their actions may be perceived under antitrust laws. This can provide valuable insights before proceeding with business decisions.

🌍 Consider State Antitrust Laws

In addition to federal laws, states have their own antitrust regulations. Most states enforce these laws through attorneys general or private plaintiffs, which can add another layer of legal considerations for businesses.

📈 Stay Informed on Policy Updates

The FTC and DOJ periodically update their policies and guidelines to align with current market realities. Keeping up to date with these changes is crucial for businesses to ensure compliance.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❓ What is the purpose of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act?

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act requires certain companies to file premerger notifications with the FTC and DOJ before completing mergers or acquisitions. This helps prevent anti-competitive practices.

🔄 How can businesses report antitrust violations?

Businesses can report suspected antitrust violations directly to the FTC or DOJ. This can initiate investigations into potential violations of antitrust laws.

🕵️‍♂️ What happens during the FTC's investigative process?

The FTC can gather information and investigate any organization involved in commerce. This includes examining business conduct and practices, except for certain financial institutions.

🚨 What are the consequences of violating antitrust laws?

Violations of antitrust laws can lead to hefty fines, with criminal violations of the Sherman Act carrying penalties of up to $100 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals.

🔍 How does the FTC evaluate vertical restraints?

Vertical restraints, such as exclusive dealing or tying arrangements, are assessed under the rule of reason. The FTC considers their actual or potential effects on competition.

🌐 Are there international implications for antitrust laws?

Yes, the FTC and DOJ coordinate with international antitrust authorities to address anti-competitive conduct that affects global markets. This collaboration helps promote fair competition worldwide.

⚖️ Recent Antitrust Cases

Recent court rulings related to antitrust laws have significant implications for businesses and competition. These cases highlight enforcement actions under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, addressing monopolistic practices and price fixing.

To explore more recent rulings and their impacts, visit the news section for more rulings on the news page.

End of October 2026 Update





Introduction


In order for a court to hear a case, it must have jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdictional requirements can be complex and vary depending on the type of case. In this article, we will provide an easy outline of the jurisdictional requirements for both federal and state courts.

Federal Court Jurisdiction


Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear certain types of cases. The jurisdictional requirements for federal courts include:

1. Constitutional and Federal Question Jurisdiction


A federal court has jurisdiction when the case involves a question of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. This includes cases involving constitutional rights, federal statutes or regulations, and cases where the United States is a party.

2. Diversity Jurisdiction


A federal court can hear a case if there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. Complete diversity means that none of the plaintiffs are from the same state as any of the defendants.

3. Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction


A federal court can hear cases involving admiralty and maritime law, such as cases involving piracy, shipping, and maritime contracts.

State Court Jurisdiction


State courts generally have broader jurisdiction than federal courts. The jurisdictional requirements for state courts include:

1. Geographical Jurisdiction


A state court can hear a case if it has geographical jurisdiction over the matter. This means that the court must have authority over the location where the event occurred or where the defendant resides.

2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction


A state court can hear a case if it has subject matter jurisdiction, meaning it has the authority to hear a particular type of case. For example, family law matters, such as divorce and child custody, are heard in state courts.

3. Limited Jurisdiction


Some state courts have limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear certain types of cases. For example, traffic court is a limited jurisdiction court that only hears traffic-related cases.

Conclusion


Jurisdictional requirements are a crucial part of the legal system, as they determine which court has the authority to hear a case. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and can only hear certain types of cases, while state courts generally have broader jurisdiction. Understanding the jurisdictional requirements for both federal and state courts is important for anyone involved in a legal matter.

When the Sherman Antitrust Act was penned in 1890, the world was different than it was today. Localities were different, state’s regulatory capacities were different, and the affect foreign nationals can have on United States commerce were different. Certainly aided by technology to further integrate the world’s business practices laws have needed to be adjusted over time. However, certain key elements of the Sherman Antitrust Act still remain as the bedrock of the law.

First and foremost, since it is a Federal law it goes to claim supreme jurisdiction, placing it above state laws. It also can be applied to any state or individual within the United States having significant impact on restraining interstate commerce. This goes on to apply to foreign nationals of the United States who may restrain interstate commerce or, more likely since outside the territorial US, foreign commerce by US entities.

These were the original jurisdictional parameters of the Sherman Antitrust Act and have served as excellent guidelines even though it was one of the first original antitrust laws. Within the Sherman Act there is a heavy emphasis on the level of anti-competitiveness being exhibited by a person or company with respect to restraining commerce. It has to be a substantial level of restraint. In many cases this would manifest itself blatantly, as can be seen by historical examples.

A local business advertising for their store across the border in their neighboring state is not a substantial level of restraint; granted it may affect the business of the store it is advertising against, but that is the nature of the free market. Such an action would not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Standard Oil’s consolidation of operations and elimination of competitors within their original state, subsequent states across the United States and abroad was found to restrain interstate commerce.

Standard Oil would be one of the first companies to be broken apart by the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the reasons are quite clear. By 1909, Standard Oil accounted for roughly 90% of oil refining in the United States and 85% of the profits. While not necessarily illegal, it drew attention to how Standard Oil could be operating so well.

This is what would end up breaking them apart: the use of secret and semi-secret railroads allowing them to use transit and a cut-rate fare price compared to their competitors, espionage against business competitors, monopolizing price rates along pipe lines, and cutting rates so low that it would force local competitors out of business, to name a few charges. In the Standard Oil example, it becomes quite clear what a substantial interstate market constraint ends up being.

However, as business practices have become more advanced, and certainly businesses have developed more and more niche markets where they may only compete against a few companies nationwide, the courts have expanded the Sherman Antitrust Act. While localities were originally under the purview of state legislature, the Federal courts have now deemed the Sherman Act to apply locally as well expanding the jurisdictional area where the Act can be applied.  In many ways, the Sherman Act now can touch any form of interstate commerce across the United States.