A New Era for Antitrust Enforcement

Take, for instance, the 2018 merger between AT&T and Time Warner—an $85 billion deal that combined a telecom and wireless giant with a media powerhouse that included HBO, CNN, and Warner Bros.

The case stretched nearly two years, concluding at a time when streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon had already begun to reshape how people consumed media.

“At the time, it was a huge deal,” says R. Mark McCareins, a clinical professor of business law at the Kellogg School. “But these markets move so quickly now that what was perceived to be evil then is laughable today.”

McCareins views this as a cautionary tale: when enforcement lags behind changes in how businesses compete, regulators risk solving yesterday’s problems. That’s part of why he expects the current administration to focus more on cases that are narrowly defined and legally sound.

Expect targeted enforcement

Antitrust laws, which promote competition and prevent monopolies, aren’t going away. But under President Trump, McCareins says, enforcement is likely to be more targeted and grounded in precedent.

“If people have had the idea that because Trump’s team has a pro big-business agenda, that will translate to weak antitrust enforcement—that paradigm is wrong,” McCareins says.

This targeted approach marks a departure from the stance under former President Joe Biden, who in 2021 appointed Lina Khan to lead the Federal Trade Commission. Khan pushed to expand antitrust enforcement beyond pricing—arguing it should also protect workers and limit corporate dominance.

Khan’s broader scope was evident in the FTC’s challenge last year to the $24.6 billion merger of grocers Kroger and Albertsons, which cited not just higher prices but also potential job losses. But not all of the agency’s efforts held up in court.

In one case, the FTC tried to block Meta’s acquisition of virtual-reality fitness company Within, arguing it would harm competition. A federal judge rejected the claim, and the agency later dropped the case—a signal, to some, that Khan’s legal strategy is predicated on tenuous antitrust footing.

“The Biden team came in and said, ‘Listen, I am using antitrust to make policy.’ Labor markets, DEI, sustainability, ESG—that’s all part of antitrust,” McCareins says.

The Trump administration, he says, isn’t likely to pursue that kind of agenda—and for business leaders, that shift carries immediate implications. Merger and acquisition review will remain a priority, with deals that significantly reduce competition still likely to draw scrutiny. But some of the Biden-era priorities—like factoring in labor markets or equity concerns—are already beginning to fade.

“Historically, the antitrust laws never incorporated the effects on labor markets within antitrust analysis,” McCareins says. “The flame was lit, but the new sheriffs are throwing water on it.”

Who stands to benefit?

Private equity may benefit from the shift in tone—but only to a point. These firms often buy up smaller players in fragmented industries, using “roll-up” strategies that can quietly reshape entire markets. That model has attracted growing attention from regulators.

“Private equity was a dirty word under the Biden administration,” McCareins says. “It’s less of a dirty word now. You may not have a bull’s-eye because you’re in private equity. But if your deal runs afoul of the traditional rigid rules, you’re not going to get a pass.”

One open question is what will happen to the major antitrust lawsuits filed during Biden’s term, when regulators targeted big-tech firms like Google, Meta, and Amazon for abusing their market power.

In Google’s case, the Department of Justice—which enforces antitrust laws alongside the FTC—accused the company of using exclusive contracts to lock in its dominance in online search, a tactic regulators say stifled competition.

According to McCareins, the big-tech cases are too far along to be dropped. “The idea that Trump and his people will come in and just pull the plug—it won’t happen,” he says.

Expect shifts in approach

While these cases continue, McCareins expects a shift in how the government handles them: “They’re going to bring a much more reasoned and rational approach ... and then just be done with it and move on.”

The DOJ’s case against Google is one example where the shift to a more-pragmatic approach may be most visible. Under Biden, the DOJ floated the idea of spinning off parts of Google’s advertising business. McCareins expects the Trump administration to take a more-pragmatic approach, but “not requesting something so dramatic” as breaking up the parent company’s businesses.

Part of the reason, McCareins explains, is that Google’s market may already be changing. As generative AI tools like chatbots increasingly provide direct answers, users are starting to rely less on traditional search engines.

“Why would you use Google,” he says, “when you can use Gemini or AI to tell you what to think and what to do?”

As legacy tech cases move through the courts, a new frontier in antitrust enforcement is opening: algorithmic dynamic pricing. The DOJ has already brought cases against real-estate firms accused of using shared software to coordinate rent increases.

“There’s been a concern, especially in Europe, about whether companies are using AI and algorithms to flatten out prices so we don’t have a lot of price disparity among competitors,” McCareins says.

Whether enforcement in this area gains momentum remains to be seen. But McCareins expects it to draw more attention, particularly through civil litigation, where discovery can shed light on how companies using the same algorithm may end up coordinating prices.

Expect predictable guidelines

One potential upside of the likely shift in approach is a return to clearer guidelines. Under Biden, regulators rolled back long-standing merger guidance, leaving many companies unsure how their deals would be evaluated.

Gail Slater, the new head of the DOJ’s antitrust division under Trump, has signalled that predictability will be a priority. In her confirmation hearings, she underscored the need for greater transparency, an approach that could give businesses more confidence when planning their next deal.

But McCareins points to a less-visible risk of shifting approaches from one administration to the next: a weakening of international coordination. He suggests that shifting political dynamics—and a change in tone from U.S. enforcers—could make global regulators more cautious about partnering with them on cases.

That could complicate cross-border mergers, especially in sensitive industries like healthcare or semiconductors, where deals often face review from multiple jurisdictions.

For companies operating in those spaces, “antitrust enforcement isn’t going away.”