United States: More Bite, Less Bark: Merger Enforcement At The FTC In The Trump Administration

Since the beginning of the Trump Administration, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) has captured headlines for its aggressive public stance regarding merger enforcement. Actions attracting attention include the DOJ's challenge of AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner and repeated declarations from antitrust leadership raising objections to behavioral remedies for anticompetitive mergers, even in vertical transactions.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which shares with the DOJ responsibility for enforcing the federal antitrust laws, has taken a more "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach to merger enforcement. Indeed, although it has not received nearly as much press attention as the DOJ, since January 2017, the FTC has brought nearly twice as many merger enforcement actions: 30 versus 16 for the DOJ. The FTC also continues to win in court. For instance, just last month, a federal district court granted the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction against Tronox's proposed acquisition of Cristal.1

These data, and statements by FTC officials, show that companies in industries for which the FTC has primary enforcement responsibility—including pharmaceuticals, supermarkets, medical devices, semiconductors, energy and others—must be aware that the FTC is not necessarily a more hospitable forum for deal reviews. As to vertical mergers, for example, the FTC has stated that it strongly favors structural relief and that behavioral remedies may only be accepted in exceptional cases.

This alert summarizes key FTC merger enforcement actions and statements made by FTC leadership since January 2017 and identifies some key implications for future transactions.

FTC Merger Enforcement in the Trump Administration: Highlights

Since January 2017, the FTC has brought enforcement actions in a wide variety of industries, including oil pipelines, gas stations, grocery products, chemicals, rocket and missile systems, fantasy sports, and software. In addition, the FTC continues to have a particular interest in pharmaceuticals and healthcare transactions, as indicated by the 10 enforcement actions in these areas, including a recent merger challenge to Grifols S.A.'s acquisition of Biotest US.2

In recent speeches, the director of the Bureau of Competition, Bruce Hoffman, highlighted a handful of particularly significant merger enforcement actions. Those cases demonstrate the FTC's focus on innovation and nascent competition, its tendency to define narrow markets around products that compete especially closely in a broader sector, and its skepticism that buyer power could ever rebut an overwhelming presumption that a merger to duopoly or monopoly will lessen competition.

  • CDK and Auto/Mate. CDK and Auto/Mate supply dealer management systems (DMS) software to car dealerships. Car dealerships use DMS software to manage nearly every aspect of their business.3 The top two DMS software providers, CDK and Reynolds, had about a 70% share of the DMS software market. Dealertrack, Autosoft and Auto/Mate also had competitive DMS offerings. The FTC challenged CDK's proposed acquisition of Auto/Mate even though Auto/Mate had only a 6% share of the DMS software market.4 According to the FTC, "Auto/Mate appeared to be on the cusp of becoming a much more important and vibrant competitor."5 The FTC viewed the transaction as part of an emerging trend of large technology firms acquiring nascent competitors to keep them from emerging as full-fledged rivals.6
  • DraftKings/FanDuel. DraftKings and FanDuel are the two largest providers of daily fantasy sports in the United States.7 The FTC sued to block the companies' merger, alleging that it would result in a near-monopoly in the market for daily fantasy sports.8 The FTC rejected arguments that the market should be broader than daily fantasy sports and should include other types of fantasy sport activities and other forms of entertainment.9 The FTC's challenge was largely based on evidence showing not only intense price competition between DraftKings and FanDuel, but also competition to innovate with new fantasy gaming features.10
  • Otto Bock/Freedom Innovations. Otto Bock and Freedom Innovations are the two leading suppliers of microprocessor prosthetic knees.11 The FTC sued to unwind Otto Bock's consummated acquisition of Freedom Innovations.12 The FTC limited the relevant market to microprocessor prosthetic knees because "[c]ompared to other products, microprocessor prosthetic knees reduce the risk of falling, cause less pain, and promote the health and function of the sound limb."13 The FTC challenged the transaction because, among other things, it was concerned that the merger would eliminate innovation competition, because "[m]uch of the competition between Otto Bock and Freedom took the form of developing new and better products."14 The lawsuit against Otto Bock is pending in an FTC administrative proceeding.
  • Sanford/Mid Dakota Clinic. The FTC's challenge of Sanford's proposed acquisition of Mid Dakota Clinic continues a series of challenges to proposed acquisitions of physician groups and hospitals. The FTC alleged that the transaction would be a merger to near monopoly in adult primary care services, pediatric services, obstetrics and gynecology services, and general surgery physician services in Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota.15 The US District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction blocking the transaction, which the parties have appealed to the Eighth Circuit.16 The parties argued that the presence of a powerful buyer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, precluded the possibility of anticompetitive effects.17 The transaction raises the question whether "a powerful buyer effectively eliminate[s] the threat of competitive harms from a merger to monopoly." The FTC answered that question with an "unequivocal[] no." "Power buyers can matter, but it's very unlikely that any buyer, no matter how powerful, can offset the anticompetitive effects of a merger to monopoly."18

In addition, the FTC has continued to enforce mergers involving "cross-ownership"; that is, where one of the merging parties already owns a significant equity stake in a competitor to the merged firm.19 Cross-ownership must be distinguished from "common ownership," where an institutional investor holds significant equity stakes in firms that compete with one another, but the institutional investor does not actually compete with any of the firms in which it holds shares. FTC Commissioner Phillips believes that there is currently no evidence that common ownership substantially lessens competition in violation of the antitrust laws, while "cross-ownership remains a traditional viable antitrust theory."20 But it is not clear whether a majority of the FTC would agree with Commissioner Phillips.

The FTC Strongly Prefers Structural Relief in Vertical Merger Cases, but There May Be Room for Behavioral Remedies

Behavioral remedies restrict the merged firms' conduct to address competitive concerns, but do not require the merging parties to divest any assets or businesses. Structural remedies, on the other hand, require the parties to divest assets or businesses. Common behavioral remedies include nondiscrimination provisions, information firewalls and arbitration provisions. Behavioral remedies have typically been used to remedy concerns with vertical mergers, where the merging parties are not horizontal competitors. Vertical mergers often generate substantial efficiencies, and the goal of a behavioral remedy is to eliminate anticompetitive effects while preserving the procompetitive efficiencies generated by the transaction.

The new DOJ leadership has been vocal in raising very substantial concerns about ever accepting behavioral remedies,21 arguing among other things that "Congress did not call for illegal mergers to be regulated, it called for them to be prohibited."22 By contrast, FTC leadership has taken a more nuanced and open stance regarding behavioral remedies. In a 2018 speech, Bruce Hoffman observed that "[f]irst and foremost, it's important to remember that the FTC prefers structural remedies to structural problems, even with vertical mergers."23 And he made clear that "no one should be surprised if the FTC requires structural relief" for a vertical merger that is likely to substantially lessen competition.24

At the same time, however, Hoffman appeared to give more credence to arguments that justify a behavioral remedy than his counterparts at the DOJ.25 He stated, "Due to the elimination of double-marginalization and the resulting downward pressure on prices, vertical mergers come with a more built-in likelihood of improving competition than horizontal mergers."26 Indeed, "empirical work has tended to show that vertical mergers (and vertical restraints) are typically procompetitive." And, although the FTC prefers structural relief, "in some cases [the FTC believes] that a behavioral or conduct remedy can prevent competitive harm while allowing the benefits of integration."27

Key Implications From FTC Merger Enforcement in the Trump Administration

  • The enforcement data suggest that the FTC is not less aggressive than the DOJ in its approach to merger reviews, especially for typical horizontal mergers.
  • The FTC may be more amenable to behavioral relief than the DOJ in vertical mergers, but to avoid structural relief, parties will at least need to show that a divestiture would substantially eliminate procompetitive efficiencies generated by the transaction and make a very strong showing that a behavioral remedy will be effective to resolve competitive concerns and be workable.
  • The FTC reviews transactions for innovation concerns and may seek enforcement on acquisitions of nascent competitors if the evidence indicates that one of the merging parties may become a significant competitive threat in the near future.
  • The FTC tends to define narrow markets and is skeptical of claims that the merging parties that are particularly close in competitive space compete in the same market with firms that offer more distant substitutes.
  • The FTC is skeptical of arguments claiming that powerful buyers will counteract the anticompetitive effects of transactions, especially when only one or two competitors will remain post-transaction.
  • The FTC continues to be concerned about lessening of competition due to cross-ownership, but may be less concerned about common ownership.
  • The FTC continues to investigate and challenge consummated transactions that are not HSR reportable.


1. Memorandum Opinion, FTC v. Tronox Limited, Case No. 1:18-cv-01622 (TNM) (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2012), https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1622-108.

2. In the Matter of Grifols, S.A., www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/181-0081/grifols-sa-grifols-shared-services-north-america-inc-matter.

3. Administrative Complaint, In the Matter of CDK Global and Auto/Mate, ¶ 1 (March 20, 2018), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/docket_no_9382.

4. D. Bruce Hoffman, Competition Policy and the Tech Industry – What's at stake?, at 5 (April 12, 2018), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1375444/ccia_speech_final_april30.pdf.

5. Id. at 9.

6. Id. at 8.

7. Complaint, Federal Trade Commission v. DraftKings, Inc., ¶ 1 (July 10, 2017), available at www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/d09375_draftkings_federal_complaint_6-19-17.pdf.

8. Id.

9. D. Bruce Hoffman, It Only Takes Two to Tango: Reflections on Six Months at the FTC, at 5 (February 2, 2018), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1318363/hoffman_gcr_live_feb_2018_final.pdf.

10. Id.; Complaint, supra note 7, at ¶ 63.

11. Press Release, FTC Challenges Consummated Merger of Companies That Make Microprocessor Prosthetic Knees (December 20, 2017), www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-challenges-consummated-merger-companies-make-microprocessor.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Hoffman, supra note 9, at 6.

15. Press Release, FTC and State Attorney General Challenge Physician Group Acquisition in North Dakota (June 22, 2017), www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/06/ftc-state-attorney-general-challenge-physician-group-acquisition.

16. Federal Trade Commission v. Sanford Health, Case No. 1:17-cv-133, Dkt. 140 (D.N.D. Dec. 15, 2017), available at www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1710019_sanfordpiorder.pdf.

17. Id. at 2.

18. Hoffman, supra note 9, at 5.

19. A good example is the FTC's most recent merger challenge to Grifols' acquisition of Biotest US, which held 41% of the stock of ADMA Biologics, Inc. (ADMA). Grifols, ADMA and another company, Saol Therapeutics, were the only suppliers of hepatitis B immune globulin in the United States. To obtain FTC approval, Grifols agreed not to acquire the ADMA stock as part of the transaction. See Press Release, FTC Requires Grifols S.A. to Divest Assets as Condition of Acquiring Biotest US Corporation (August 1, 2018), www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/08/ftc-requires-grifols-sa-divest-assets-condition-acquiring-biotest. The FTC also challenged Red Ventures' acquisition of Bankrate based on cross-ownership concerns. There, two investors that owned 34% of Red Ventures also owned 100% of "A Place for Mom," which competed with one of Bankrate's businesses, Caring.com, in the market for third-party paid referral services for senior living facility operators. Red Ventures agreed to divest . The FTC also challenged Red Ventures' acquisition of Bankrate based on cross-ownership concerns. There, two investors that owned 34% of Red Ventures also owned 100% of "A Place for Mom," which competed with one of Bankrate's businesses, Caring.com, in the market for third-party paid referral services for senior living facility operators. Red Ventures agreed to divest Caring.com to obtain FTC approval of the transaction. See In the Matter of Red Ventures Holdco, LP and Bankrate, Inc., Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders to Aid Public Comment (November 3, 2017), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1710196_red_ventures_bankrate_analysis.pdf.

20. Noah Joshua Phillips, Taking Stock: Assessing Common Ownership, at 1-2 (June 1, 2018), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1382461/phillips_-_taking_stock_6-1-18_0.pdf.

21. Makan Delrahim, Remarks at the Antitrust Division's Second Roundtable on Competition and Deregulation, at 2 (April 26, 2018), www.justice.gov/opa/speech/file/1057841/download.

22. Id. at 3.

23. D. Bruce Hoffman, Vertical Merger Enforcement at the FTC, at 1 (January 10, 2018), www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements. Id. at 7.

24. Id. at 8.

25. But see Makan Delrahim, Antitrust and Deregulation, at 8 (November 16, 2017) ("In certain instances where an unlawful vertical transaction generates significant efficiencies that cannot be achieved without the merger or through a structural remedy, then there's a place for considering a behavioral remedy if it will completely cure the anticompetitive harms. It's a high standard to meet."), www.justice.gov/opa/speech/file/1012086/download.

26. Hoffman, supra note 23, at 3.

27. Id. at 8.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions