In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | Poland | Italy | Japan
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
FTC seeks public comment on impact of employee noncompete agreements and issues warning letters to health care companies.
On Sept. 4, 2025, the FTC issued a request for information seeking public comment on the scope, prevalence, and effects of employee noncompete agreements. The inquiry is intended to assist the agency in evaluating potential future enforcement actions. Noncompete agreements, which restrict employees from joining competitors or establishing competing businesses after employment, may serve legitimate business purposes but may be abused. The FTC is encouraging input from employees, former employees, and employers to better assess the impact of these agreements on labor markets. Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition Kelse Moen stated that the agency intends to address unreasonable restraints and restore fairness in employment practices. Public comments are due within 60 days, no later than Nov. 3, 2025, through regulations.gov, with alternative procedures available for confidential submissions.
On Sept. 10, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson sent letters to several health care employers and staffing companies advising them to review their employment agreements to ensure that they do not contain unreasonable restrictions, including overly broad noncompete clauses. Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition Kelse Moen stated that unreasonable noncompete agreements remain an agency priority, and she encouraged all employers to review their contracts to ensure that they comply with the law.
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. DOJ settlement requires UnitedHealth and Amedisys to divest 164 facilities, pay $1.1 million penalty.
On Aug. 7, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and state co-plaintiffs filed a proposed settlement resolving their challenge to UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UnitedHealth)’s $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys Inc. The decree would require UnitedHealth and Amedisys to divest 164 home health and hospice facilities across 19 states, representing about $528 million in annual revenue, marking the largest divestiture of outpatient healthcare services ever required in a merger case. The settlement also imposes a $1.1 million civil penalty on Amedisys for falsely certifying its responses under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act when it was alleged to have failed to produce certain documents and/or to disclose the deletions of others, and mandates corporate antitrust compliance training, including for “certain of Amedisys’s field leadership for all lines of business.”
The agency alleged that Amedisys violated requirements of the HSR Act beginning on Dec. 18, 2023, until Aug. 26, 2024, when it submitted a complete response to the agency’s second request. The maximum statutory penalty for that length of violation may have been almost $13 million. Internal corrective actions to avoid future violations of the HSR Act convinced the DOJ to seek a lower penalty amount.
Additional provisions include the possibility of further divestitures if regulatory approval issues arise, appointment of a monitor to oversee compliance, and protections to ensure divestiture buyers can compete effectively, including obligations to provide those buyers with “assets, personnel, and relationships to compete against UnitedHealth in the overlap areas.” The proposed settlement will be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment period before potential entry of final judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
2. Revocation of Biden competition order draws praise from DOJ and FTC.
The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission both welcomed the president’s decision to revoke Executive Order 14036 on competition, marking a shift in federal antitrust policy. The Biden era order, signed in July 2021, established the White House Competition Council, which was responsible for overseeing the implementation of broad competition initiatives and coordinating federal responses to large corporations’ conduct the government viewed as anticompetitive. While the order did not impose direct requirements on private actors, it directed 14 federal agencies, including the FTC, Federal Communications Commission, Securities Exchange Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health and Human Services, to develop new policies, issue reports, and propose rules designed to address market concentration in labor, health care, technology, agriculture, and consumer industries. The order was organized into six sections that reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to strong antitrust enforcement, expansion of regulatory oversight, and legislative reforms such as lowering drug prices and advancing a public health insurance option.
Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater stated that the revocation of the order allows the Justice Department to restore balance and efficiency in antitrust enforcement. She explained that “America First Antitrust” focuses on empowering the American people in free markets rather than enabling regulators and bureaucrats to prescribe outcomes. Slater emphasized the importance of removing barriers to innovation while reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. She also pointed to steps the department has already taken to streamline merger review under the Hart Scott Rodino Act, including reinstating early terminations in straightforward merger filings and the renewed use of carefully designed consent decrees in appropriate cases.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson expressed similar views and welcomed the shift away from the framework established under the prior administration. He observed that the now withdrawn executive order encouraged top-down competition regulations and created a flawed philosophical basis for the Biden Administration’s hostility toward mergers and acquisitions. Ferguson emphasized that the FTC remains committed to fostering competition through practical enforcement rather than prescriptive rulemaking in order to maintain open and dynamic markets.
Both the Justice Department and the FTC praised the administration’s alternative strategy of employing targeted executive actions, including initiatives to reduce drug prices and eliminate regulatory barriers, as more effective and adaptable than sweeping mandates. Both agencies reaffirmed their commitment to competition policies that reflect the pace and complexity of today’s economy while promoting innovation, efficiency, and consumer choice.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Johnson v. Zuffa LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01189 (D. Nev. Sep. 2, 2025).
On Sept. 2, 2025, the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware denied the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)’s motion to deny class certification. The case involves a putative class of UFC fighters who alleged anticompetitive activities leading to suppressed wages. The UFC argued that the named plaintiffs—all former UFC fighters—cannot act as representatives for the proposed class because they did not sign the mandatory arbitration and class-action waiver provisions that the majority of UFC fighters signed. The court ruled that it was too early to determine whether these employment provisions—which were added in 2017—were even enforceable under state law, and thus it was premature to decide whether the named plaintiffs stood in the same position as the majority of the class members.
2. In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:16-md-02724 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 2, 2025).
Also on Sept. 2, the Honorable Judge Cynthia M. Rufe granted preliminary approval for a $33 million settlement for antitrust claims brought against Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Direct purchasers of generic drugs alleged that Pfizer and its subsidiary fixed drug prices with their competitors. As part of the settlement, Pfizer denied any wrongdoing or liability. The court nevertheless held that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and the court “will likely be able to approve the settlement.”
3. Musharbash v. U.S. Anesthesia Partners Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00116. (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2025).
On Aug. 26, 2025, a federal judge in Texas dismissed antitrust claims brought against the private equity firm Welsh Carson Anderson & Stowe. The lawsuit alleges that Welsh Carson created and/or funded a separate company, U.S. Anesthesia Partners Inc. (USAP), which allegedly purchased various anesthesiology practices in order to gain monopoly power for the provision of anesthesia. Although the court allowed the antitrust claims against USAP to proceed, the court dismissed claims against Welsh Carson because (1) Welsh Carson could not be said to conspire with its wholly owned subsidiary, USAP, and (2) any claims against Welsh Carson were barred by the applicable statute of limitations because none of the alleged conduct by Welsh Carson in creating USAP occurred within the last four years.
4. In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:13-cv-20000 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 20, 2025).
An Alabama federal judge approved a $2.8 billion settlement between the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS) and health care providers. The settlement resolves allegations that BCBS and its 33 independent member companies agreed to non-competition agreements that carved up the insurance market throughout the United States. In addition to the settlement itself, the court also approved awarding $759 million of that settlement to the lawyers representing the class of medical providers who were allegedly harmed by these market prices. According to the court, the 12-year litigation justified the substantial award of attorneys’ fees, leaving the remaining $2.05 billion to be disbursed to class members.
Mexico
Appointment of Federal Judges Specialized in Competition Matters
In June 2025, Mexico conducted its first judicial election, a landmark event that selected federal judges for district courts specializing in competition, broadcasting, and telecommunications. This appointment process is particularly significant given the recent extinction of the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) and the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT), and the establishment of the new National Antitrust Commission (CNA). The profiles and judicial outlooks of the newly appointed judges are of strategic importance, as they will shape the resolution of disputes in these key sectors.
1. Lucero Grisel Martínez Encarnación.
Ms. Martínez Encarnación brings expertise in telecommunications regulation and competition, with over a decade of experience at the IFT. Her academic credentials include a law degree awarded for academic excellence and a master’s in constitutional procedural law. She is recognized for her in-depth understanding of digital infrastructure and market analysis, as well as her commitment to transparency and citizen engagement. Her proposals include the use of plain language in judicial decisions, the integration of artificial intelligence to improve efficiency, and the dissemination of rulings via social media. While some consider her approach as innovative and pro-consumer, implementation challenges remain, especially regarding the definition of protocols for AI use and plain language. Companies in digital markets, particularly those with significant market power, may expect rigorous scrutiny.
2. Ernesto Sinuhe Castillo Torres.
Mr. Castillo Torres possesses specialized training in constitutional law, competition, regulation, energy, and telecommunications. His professional experience spans both COFECE and IFT, where he managed investigations into market power, unnotified mergers, and barriers to entry. His judicial philosophy emphasizes impartiality, promptness, and strict adherence to the law, with a focus on human rights and gender perspective. Notable proposals include certifying judicial staff competencies to combat corruption, employing clear language in rulings, and publicizing cases relevant to consumer interests. His appointment suggests a demanding regulatory environment, particularly for companies with large market shares, and underscores the need for robust compliance and transparency.
3. María Fernanda Hernández Andión.
Ms. Hernández Andión’s career has centered on telecommunications law and constitutional procedure, with professional experience gained entirely within the judiciary. She has served at the Supreme Court and specialized district courts, contributing to high-level legal analysis and drafting judgments in competition cases. Some have categorized her judicial vision as humanistic and citizen-focused, committed to impartial justice and protection against authoritarian acts. Her proposals aim to eliminate unnecessary formalities, expedite proceedings, and foster collaboration across branches of government. While her approach may increase scrutiny and impose higher demands on businesses, it may also offer strengthened protection of fundamental rights and greater legal certainty in competition matters.
Conclusion
The appointment of these judges marks a turning point in Mexico’s competition law landscape. Their backgrounds and judicial philosophies may play a crucial role in shaping regulatory and dispute resolution practices in economic competition, broadcasting, and telecommunications. Stakeholders should monitor the evolution of case law and consider adjusting compliance strategies to reflect the new judicial environment.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
1. Volkswagen settled with UOKiK President in Dieselgate case.
On Aug. 27, 2025, the UOKiK President updated a decision in the long-running Dieselgate case, confirming that Volkswagen Group Poland had misled consumers and imposing a fine of nearly PLN 74 million (approx. EUR 17.5 million / USD 20 million).
According to the UOKiK President, the company misrepresented the environmental performance of diesel vehicles equipped with EA189 engines manufactured between 2008 and 2015. These vehicles used software that manipulated nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions under test conditions, giving the false impression of compliance with Euro 5 standards. The UOKiK President also found that Volkswagen had instructed dealers to dismiss consumer complaints, even in cases of non-conformity under statutory warranty.
While the original decision was issued in 2020, Volkswagen appealed. A court-led settlement was ultimately reached with the involvement of the Attorney General to the Republic of Poland. The updated decision, reflecting the court’s opinion, reiterates the key findings regarding misleading consumers but imposes a fine that is more than PLN 46 million lower than in the original decision.
The final decision coincides with the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling on Aug. 1, 2025 (C-666/23), which confirms the consumer right to claim compensation for damage caused by the installation of defeat devices.
2. UOKiK requires Booking.com to better inform consumers about travel providers.
On Aug. 12, 2025, the UOKiK President accepted commitments from Booking.com B.V. following an investigation into the platform’s failure to clearly inform users whether accommodation providers were operating as commercial traders or private individuals.
The case arose as part of UOKiK’s monitoring of compliance with the EU Omnibus Directive. According to UOKiK, Booking.com failed to provide clear and accessible information about hosts’ legal status and the corresponding level of consumer protection available to users. In some cases, users were unaware that they were booking accommodations from private individuals rather than commercial operators, thereby losing important rights under consumer laws. The company also blurred the division of responsibility between itself and accommodation providers, making the complaint process more complicated.
To address the findings, Booking.com committed to improving platform transparency and introducing clearer disclosures about provider status. The company will also compensate eligible users who made bookings between Jan. 1, 2023, and the effective implementation date of the new requirements. Depending on their tier in Booking.com’s loyalty program, users will receive either platform credit or an upgrade to a higher tier.
The decision follows similar commitments UOKiK has obtained from other major platforms and reflects ongoing enforcement of e-commerce transparency rules under EU and Polish consumer protection law.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
San Benedetto amends commercial communications on green claims.
ICA has successfully concluded a moral persuasion initiative with Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A. regarding the use of environmental statements for its Ecogreen product line. Specifically, product labels, packaging, the company’s website, and advertising campaigns included messages suggesting that the production of bottles generated no greenhouse gas emissions or had a positive impact on the environment. ICA considered these claims potentially misleading, as they might give consumers a distorted perception of the products’ actual environmental impacts.
Following discussions with ICA, San Benedetto removed the above-mentioned claims, eliminating the “CO2 Zero Impact” wording from labels and promotional materials, as well as nature-themed graphics reinforcing the message. The company also introduced a QR code on packaging that redirects to a new section of its website dedicated to sustainability initiatives.
This case reflects ICA’s increasing scrutiny of green claims and reiterates the importance of providing accurate and transparent environmental information.
Japan
Japan Introduces Final Rules to Ensure Fair Competition in Smartphone Software
The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has finalized subordinate regulations and guidelines under the Act on the Promotion of Competition for Specified Smartphone Software, marking a step toward Japan’s goal of creating a more open and competitive mobile ecosystem. The new framework, which takes effect on Dec. 18, 2025, is designed to prevent dominant platform operators from engaging in practices that restrict user choice or disadvantage third-party developers.
The rules apply to four core areas of the smartphone ecosystem: operating systems, app stores, web browsers, and search engines. Under the new regime, platform operators will be prohibited from limiting access to alternative app stores, forcing developers to use proprietary payment systems, or leveraging confidential developer data to favor their own services. These measures aim to level the playing field for developers and enhance consumer choice.
The JFTC developed these rules following a public consultation held between May and June 2025, during which it received over 100 comments from stakeholders. This feedback helped refine the guidelines to ensure clarity and enforceability. Looking ahead, the JFTC announced that it will continue preparing for the Act’s full enforcement, including initiatives to raise public awareness and ensure stakeholders understand the new obligations. Businesses operating in Japan’s mobile software market may wish to review their practices and prepare for the upcoming obligations before the December deadline.
Read previous editions of GT’s Competition Currents Newsletter.
Subscribe to GT Antitrust Litigation & Competition Regulation content.
1 Due to the terms of GT’s retention by certain of its clients, these summaries may not include developments relating to matters involving those clients.