State legislatures are increasingly active in reshaping healthcare markets, with 2025 marking a particularly aggressive year for legislative action. Across many jurisdictions, new laws expand premerger visibility into healthcare deals, require greater ownership and affiliation transparency, restrict private equity and management service organization involvement in clinical enterprises, recalibrate certificate‑of‑need (CON) frameworks and curb post‑employment noncompete for physicians and other clinicians. Several measures also address patient‑facing transparency and communications. While federal scrutiny of healthcare transactions and practices remains significant, new state legislation is presenting most immediate changes to deal planning, governance and employment structures. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Senate Democrats Introduce Sweeping Meatpacking Industry Legislation with Significant Antitrust Implications
On March 5, 2026, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would fundamentally restructure the U.S. meatpacking industry. The Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act proposes mandatory divestitures, cross-protein operation bans, foreign ownership restrictions and new limitations on vertical supply relationships—changes that could affect virtually every major player in the sector.
California’s AB 1776 Would Significantly Expand State Antitrust Law
The California Legislature is currently considering a bill that would substantially expand the scope and enforcement mechanisms of California’s antitrust regime. On January 30, 2026, the California Law Revision Commission officially approved a final legislative proposal to broaden the state’s antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act, to include single-firm conduct and to allow state enforcers to go beyond the federal Sherman Act. While the bill, AB 1776, remains under consideration in the state Legislature, it reflects a broader trend toward more aggressive antitrust regulation and enforcement at the state level, both in California and nationally. Read the Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
Read the Duane Morris Antitrust Class Action Review 2026
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Sean McConnell
Class action litigation involving antitrust claims had several key developments in 2025, despite a relative lack of actual verdicts. Because antitrust remedies often allow recovery of treble damages, the incentive to settle these cases is often paramount. Additionally, plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees that may be substantial because of the complexity of this kind of litigation. As a result, most antitrust class actions are settled before trial, and one of the most crucial phases in these cases is class certification. Thus, the order granting or denying a motion to certify a class in these cases is critical.
Click here to bookmark or download a copy of the Antitrust Class Action Review – 2026 e-book.
NASCAR & Racing Teams Settle Antitrust Dispute
On December 11, 2025, NASCAR settled an ongoing and closely watched antitrust trial brought by two racing teams, 23XI Racing (co-owned by Michael Jordan) and Front Row Motorsports, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The settlement was announced after the plaintiffs had presented their case-in-chief and following testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including Jordan. The financial terms of the settlement have not been publicly disclosed, but the agreement aims to provide a more equitable business framework for teams in the sport.
FTC Fails to Establish That Social Media Company Has Monopoly Power
On November 18, 2025, after five years of litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment in favor of Meta and against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its lawsuit alleging that Meta held and illegally maintained monopoly power in personal social networking through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The decision followed a six-week bench trial that included testimony from high-ranking Meta executives, including Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg.
State AGs Move to Intervene in Federal Oversight of DOJ’s $14 Billion Merger Agreement
On October 14, 2025, a coalition of 13 state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois, filed a motion seeking to intervene in the Tunney Act review by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) settlement that allowed the $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks to proceed.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
FTC Abandons Appeals of Decisions Striking Down Its Noncompete Rule, but Restrictive Covenants Remain an Enforcement Priority
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has formally abandoned its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC (5th Cir.) and Properties of the Villages v. FTC (11th Cir.), effectively conceding the vacatur of its proposed nationwide ban on noncompete agreements. While this decision confirms that the FTC’s sweeping noncompete rule will not take effect, employers should not interpret the move as a retreat from scrutiny of post-employment restrictive covenants. On the contrary, recent enforcement actions and policy initiatives suggest that the FTC will continue to pursue noncompetes and similar labor market restrictive covenants through alternative strategies. Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
Chambers USA Recognizes Duane Morris Antitrust Division and Attorneys
Duane Morris LLP is pleased to announced that Chambers USA has recognized Duane Morris Antitrust division and attorneys.
Pennsylvania
Edward G. Biester III, Antitrust
Sean P. McConnell, Antitrust
Washington, D.C.
Brian H. Pandya, Antitrust
Large No-Poach Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval in District of Connecticut
A putative class of aerospace workers recently obtained preliminary approval of large settlements with several government contracting firms in antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The nine named plaintiffs are current and former employees of Pratt & Whitney, which is now a division of RTX Corp. (formerly Raytheon Technologies Corporation). Pratt & Whitney manufactures jet engines for commercial and military aircraft. The other five defendants are suppliers of engineering services to Pratt & Whitney.
In their class action complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to restrict the recruitment and hiring of each other’s employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Such agreements are commonly referred to as no-poach agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that there were three types of illegal no-poach agreements: (1) an agreement between Pratt & Whitney and the engineering services firm defendants not to recruit or hire each other’s employees, which Pratt & Whitney primarily enforced; (2) an agreement that Pratt & Whitney would not hire from the engineering services firms without their prior written approval; and (3) additional bilateral agreements between certain firms and Pratt & Whitney limiting Pratt & Whitney’s ability to recruit and hire employees from that firm. Plaintiffs argued that this conspiracy restrained competition in the labor market for aerospace workers and suppressed employees’ compensation.
In order to obtain dismissal of the case with prejudice and an exchange of releases, Pratt & Whitney has agreed to pay $34 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of the class. Similarly, the engineering services firm defendants have agreed to pay $26.5 million into a similar fund. A hearing has been set for May 7, 2025 to determine final approval of the settlement after any objections or opt-outs from class members.