Antitrust Enforcement Reform Act

Full Title:
Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act of 2025

Summary#

This bill, the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act of 2025, would change many U.S. antitrust rules and give federal enforcers new tools. It would revise the Clayton Act to lower the legal standard for blocking mergers from "substantially to lessen" competition to "create an appreciable risk of materially lessening" competition. The bill would treat monopsony (buyer power) explicitly as covered and set presumptions that acquisitions leading to big increases in market concentration or where a firm has over 50% share may harm competition unless the parties prove otherwise. It would require large merging parties to carry the burden of showing mergers will not harm competition in certain cases.

The bill would create a new definition and prohibition on "exclusionary conduct" by firms with market power and make such conduct a violation that can trigger civil penalties. It would add civil penalties for violations of the Sherman Act and allow the Federal Trade Commission to seek penalties for unfair methods of competition that violate antitrust statutes. The bill would let injured private parties recover prejudgment interest on treble damages.

The bill would create two new units inside the Federal Trade Commission: an Office of the Competition Advocate with reporting, subpoena, and review powers, and an Office of Market Analysis and Data to collect and publish merger and concentration data and reports. It would require post-proceeding annual reporting about the competitive effects of certain resolved mergers for five years. It directs studies by the FTC on overlapping institutional investor ownership and by the Government Accountability Office on merger remedies and merger impacts.

Other changes include limits on implied antitrust immunity from other federal regulation, new whistleblower protections and a whistleblower reward program for criminal antitrust information, and a ban on enforcing predispute arbitration agreements and class-action waivers in antitrust disputes. The bill would authorize $535 million for the DOJ Antitrust Division and $725 million for the FTC for fiscal year 2025, and would direct premerger filing fees collected after 2025 to be retained for agency enforcement.

What it means for you#

  • Businesses that plan large mergers would face a different legal test and may have to prove the deal will not harm competition in more cases.
  • Companies with large market shares (including buyer power) could face faster enforcement and new penalties for exclusionary conduct.
  • Workers, suppliers, consumers, and small businesses could see more merger reviews and post-merger monitoring by federal agencies.
  • Employees and contractors who report suspected antitrust violations to the government would get anti-retaliation protection and access to a complaint process; whistleblowers who provide original criminal antitrust information could receive financial awards.
  • Plaintiffs in antitrust class actions would be able to proceed in court even if a contract includes a predispute arbitration or class-action waiver for antitrust claims.
  • The FTC would collect and publish more data on market concentration and mergers, which could increase public information about specific industries.

Expenses#

  • The bill authorizes $535,000,000 for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and $725,000,000 for the Federal Trade Commission for fiscal year 2025.
  • Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the bill directs that all premerger notification filing fees collected under section 7A of the Clayton Act be retained and used for antitrust enforcement by the DOJ Antitrust Division and the FTC.
  • No publicly available information on total long-term budgetary costs or savings beyond those authorizations is included in the bill text provided.

Proponents' View#

The bill's Findings and Purposes say proponents believe competition is vital to choice, quality, innovation, wages, small business growth, and economic opportunity. The bill text argues that market power and consolidation have grown and harmed consumers, workers, suppliers, and innovation. Proponents say current legal standards, court decisions, and enforcement resources have limited the government’s ability to stop harmful mergers and exclusionary conduct. The bill is presented as strengthening enforcement, clarifying standards (including for monopsony), adding penalties and remedies, protecting whistleblowers, improving agency data and studies, and providing funding to better deter anticompetitive conduct.

Opponents' View#

No publicly available information.