On January 20, 2025, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s administration will come into power. The McDermott antitrust and competition team has analyzed the first Trump term, compared it to the Biden administration’s actions, and reviewed statements from those involved in the upcoming Trump administration. While it appears that the new administration will be good for business, especially for companies planning to expand through mergers and acquisitions, this client alert takes a closer look at what is likely to change and what is likely to stay the same in antitrust enforcement throughout the next four years.
Read more here.Understanding How the New HSR Regime Impacts Your Business
During a recent webinar, Jon Dubrow, Greg Heltzer, Lisa Rumin, and Ryan Tisch provided a comprehensive introduction to the new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules and their impact on the US premerger notification filing process. The program concluded with a Q&A moderated by Reese Poncia and featuring Ty Carson, a former Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office lawyer, who shared his insider’s perspective from six years with the agency.
New Premerger Notification Regime to Fundamentally Change M&A Strategy
On October 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued new final rules governing the US premerger notification filing process. These rules – the first major overhaul to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing form in the nearly 50-year history of the HSR Act – will fundamentally alter the premerger notification process. While the rules omit some of the more extreme aspects proposed in the 2023 draft rules, they impose substantially more burdens on filing parties than the current filing regime. The changes will have wide-ranging implications for all parties required to notify transactions under the HSR Act.
Game-Changing Ruling Looms in Google Antitrust Battle
On 5 September 2024, Advocate General (AG) Laila Medina rendered her opinion in Alphabet and Others, suggesting that the European Court of Justice not apply the strict Bronner criteria when assessing Google’s refusal to grant access to its Android Auto platform for an app that provides a set of features for charging electric vehicles.
Instead, AG Medina concluded that a dominant company that owns a platform and excludes, obstructs, or delays access of an app developed by a third-party infringes Article 102 TFEU, provided that such behaviour gives rise to anticompetitive effects to the detriment of consumers and cannot be objectively justified.
Importantly, AG Medina broke new legal ground in that she believes that a refusal to grant access to a platform cannot be objectively justified by the “mere fact that the dominant undertaking must develop a software template taking into account the specific needs of the operator requesting access.” In other words, simply granting access to a platform is not enough, certain changes to facilitate access have to be undertaken.
Illumina/GRAIL: European Court of Justice Annuls the Commission’s Approach
In a spectacular turn, on September 3, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s decision to review the acquisition of Grail by Illumina. The Commission had previously asserted its authority to examine the merger under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, despite the transaction not meeting the EU or national turnover thresholds for review.
This ruling is significant because it challenges the Commission’s ability to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds but are referred by EU Member States. This could impact how future mergers are reviewed within the EU, as the Commission is likely to find alternative ways to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds.
