Did I Hear That Correctly? DOJ Antitrust Division Seeks to Criminally Prosecute Monopolization
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.04.22
This week, a DOJ Antitrust Division official signaled a significant expansion of its criminal enforcement program. While speaking at the ABA White Collar Conference in San Francisco, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Powers said that the Division is considering criminally prosecuting violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization. This is a major break from long-standing Division policy that it would prosecute only per se violations of the antitrust laws, and raises potentially significant due process concerns.
Although the Division has not brought criminal charges for a Section 2 violation in over 40 years, Powers explained that the Division historically did not shy from bringing criminal monopolization cases and will use “all available tools” to enhance antitrust enforcement. Powers gave no guidance about the circumstances in which the Division would consider such charges, other than to say that if the facts and law led the Division to believe criminal charges were warranted, they would bring a case.
Without further guidance from the Division, companies will have to fall back on foundational antitrust principles and ensure employees are adequately trained and business practices comply with current laws. Although the Division may be on the hunt for criminal cases, the legal strictures of the Sherman Act remain unchanged. Criminal enforcement of claims of monopolization or attempted monopolization, which are by definition subject to a Rule of Reason balancing test (not a per se prohibition), would have to overcome years of precedent limiting criminal violations to naked restraints of trade, and raises potentially significant concerns regarding due process, notice, and lenity.
Powers’ statements are consistent with other recent moves by the Division to expand criminal enforcement of the antitrust laws. In particular, the Division’s move to criminally prosecute “no-poach” agreements is another example of conduct that was historically subject to civil enforcement that the Division has sought to criminalize over the last several years. Beginning in 2016, the Division announced it considered naked no-poach agreements a per se violation of the antitrust laws subject to criminal enforcement. In 2020, the Division brought its first criminal charges for no-poach agreements, and it remains a significant enforcement priority.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
