North America Antitrust Digest | March 2025

A quick look at the top headlines in Antitrust and Competition

1. Trump Fires Democratic FTC Commissioners

2. Gail Slater Confirmed to Lead DOJ Antitrust Division

3. FTC Challenges Medical Device Deal as Ferguson Signals Continued Scrutiny of M&A Activity

4. DOJ Updates Filing to Break Up Google

5. House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on NCAA’s Antitrust Exemption

6. FCC Chair Brendan Carr Threatens Mergers Over Corporate DEI Policies

A breakdown of the latest news, moves and trends

Trump Fires Democratic FTC Commissioners

On March 18, President Trump fired both Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter. Firing the two opposition party commissioners in the middle of their terms is a significant break of precedent and the latest example of President Trump seeking to consolidate executive power and exert control over independent agencies.

The firings follow a letter sent last month by Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) stating that the Department of Justice will ask the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, a legal precedent limiting the ability for the president to fire members of independent agencies at will. President Trump also signed an executive order in February requiring independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review and consult with the White House on their priorities and strategic plans.

In response to the firings, Bedoya released a statement on X that he had been “illegally fired.” In her own statement, Slaughter, who was notably nominated and confirmed to be FTC Commissioner under the first Trump Administration, stated that President Trump was “violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent.” Slaughter also suggested that the firings could be out of fear for opposition “if the President orders Chairman Ferguson to treat the most powerful corporations and their executives – like the ones that flanked the President at his inauguration – with kids gloves.”

Slaughter said she is “considering legal options including a lawsuit.” Alvaro said he planned to sue over his dismissal, writing “I’ll see the president in court” on X.

What this means: The firings of the two commissioners will set off months, if not years, of litigation. Expected rulings on Humphrey’s Executor could fundamentally alter the structure of independent commissions, rendering them more or less appendages of Presidential policy making. For the FTC, in particular, the firings could bring questions from some about the Commission’s very governance. While the FTC can meet with as little as one Commissioner, Democrats in Congress will likely claim the Commission lacks a legal compliment of commissioners. If the courts agree, it could render decisions made without Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter legally suspect.

Gail Slater Confirmed to Lead DOJ Antitrust Division

Gail Slater, President Donald Trump’s pick to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 11 by a vote of 78 to 19, signaling strong bipartisan support to start her tenure. Slater, a veteran antitrust attorney and former economic adviser to Vice President JD Vance, has been a proponent of stricter antitrust enforcement and scrutiny, and her nomination was praised by former antitrust enforcers from both parties as well as both conservative and progressive-leaning antitrust advocacy groups, including Heritage Action and the Tech Oversight Project. In her nomination hearing, Slater repeatedly expressed a commitment to continuing bipartisan antitrust efforts, particularly against Big Tech monopolies, and to protecting workers and scrutinizing illegal mergers across sectors.

Read more on Gail Slater here.

Developments and deals to watch

FTC Challenges Medical Device Deal as Ferguson Signals Continued Scrutiny of M&A Activity

On March 6, the FTC sued to block private equity firm GTCR’s acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. The FTC complaint alleges that the combination would “create a combined company controlling more than 50% of the market for outsourced hydrophilic coatings” used by medical device manufacturers. GTCR currently owns a majority stake in Biocoat, Inc., which is the second-largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings, while Surmodics is the largest provider of outsourced hydrophilic coatings, according to the FTC.

This latest FTC merger challenge comes as FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has expressed that he will not be afraid to go after deals he views as anticompetitive. "If we think conduct or merger is going to hurt Americans economically, I'm taking you to court," Ferguson told a gathering of Yale's CEO Caucus in Washington earlier in March, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by Axios. “This isn't the Bush administration," he later stated.

Last week, the FTC also reiterated its opposition to an Indiana hospital merger between Union Hospital, Inc. and Terre Haute Regional Hospital. The FTC had previously come out against the proposed merger last year during the Biden Administration and cited similar competition concerns in its latest letter urging the Indiana Department of Health to deny acquisition.

On the horizon: On March 12, Bloomberg reported that the FTC is proceeding with a widespread antitrust probe of Microsoft, focusing on the company’s AI investments, as well as its cloud computing business and software licensing practices. The agency has asked Microsoft details about its data centers, its struggles to find enough computing power to meet customer demand and information about licensing rule changes expected later this year, the Bloomberg report said. The probe was started last year by then-Chair Lina Khan, and Ferguson has been particularly vocal about taking on Big Tech.

DOJ Updates Filing to Break Up Google

In a court filing on March 7, the DOJ doubled down on a recommendation that Google be forced to sell its Chrome browser business following a ruling last year by U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that found Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online search. “Google’s illegal conduct has created an economic goliath, one that wreaks havoc over the marketplace to ensure that — no matter what occurs — Google always wins,” the filing stated.

In addition to the forced divestiture of Chrome, the DOJ is requesting Google to stop paying partners for preferential treatment of its search engine and that Google provide prior notification of any new joint venture, collaboration, or partnership with any company that competes with Google in search or in search text ads. However, the new proposal removed a previous recommendation calling for Google to divest from all AI investments, instead requiring “prior notification for future investments.”

In response, a Google spokesperson told Reuters that the DOJ’s “sweeping proposals continue to go miles beyond the Court’s decision, and would harm America’s consumers, economy and national security.” Google has said it will appeal Mehta’s decision, but in the meantime offered an alternative proposal to provide partners like Apple and Mozilla with more flexibility to preload and set different default platforms. Mehta is scheduled to hear arguments from both Google and the DOJ on April 21.

What this means: The updated DOJ filing is another signal that antitrust enforcement under the Trump 2.0 Administration is likely to be aligned with the stricter antitrust enforcement we saw under the Biden Administration, though maybe with softer edges.

House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on NCAA’s Antitrust Exemption

On Tuesday, March 11 the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing entitled “Antitrust Law and the NCAA: Examining the Current Climate.” Members and witnesses discussed the NCAA’s request for an antitrust exemption, which the association argues is necessary to protect it against lawsuits and enable it to better create and enforce rules amidst the evolving college sports landscape, and in particular, changes to student-athlete compensation and name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, revenue sharing, and transfer eligibility.

During the hearing, Republican members of the committee largely spoke in support of the NCAA’s request for an antitrust exemption, warning that without one, the NCAA cannot effectively self-govern. Nearly all Republican members opposed classifying student-athletes as employees and warned that this classification would jeopardize Olympic sports programs and create additional unintended consequences. However, Full Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) stated that the Republicans have not yet reached a preferred stance on the issue and are in an information-gathering stage. Republican Members also touched on the need for the NCAA to have more control over the transfer portal and player eligibility to preserve roster stability and student-athlete academics.

On the flip side, Democrats criticized the NCAA’s request for an antitrust exemption, characterizing the association as a repeat antitrust offender. They also argued that the NCAA is seeking to claw back student-athlete benefits gained in recent years and further profit off the unpaid labor force. Underscoring the Democrat criticisms, Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY) cited a joint statement from all professional sports players associations urging Congress to oppose legislation that would eliminate student-athletes' rights allotted to them under contract, tort, antitrust, and/or labor laws. Nadler stated that Congress should not “put their thumb on the scale” in favor of the NCAA, which has “too often placed its profits over the interests of its athletes.” Executive Director of the United College Athletes Association, Andrew Cooper, shared a similar sentiment, calling the NCAA a monopoly and warning that granting the NCAA an antitrust bailout would erode antitrust laws, set a dangerous precedent, and politicize college sports. 

What this means: The partisan divide of the hearing shows that passing legislation to grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption will face a high bar this Congress. In the meantime, state legislatures are crafting their own legislation as lawsuits continue to play out across the country on these issues. On March 17, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, along with attorneys general of Florida, Tennessee, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, announced a settlement with the NCAA that will “end the NCAA’s restrictive NIL rules and enable student athletes to learn about NIL opportunities before committing to a school.”

Essential insights and analysis

FCC Chair Brendan Carr Threatens Mergers Over Corporate DEI Policies

In an interview with Bloomberg on March 21, FCC Chair Brendan Carr stated that he is prepared to block M&A activity from companies with “invidious” DEI policies and programs. “Any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of their invidious forms of DEI discrimination,” Carr said.

Carr argued that the FCC can only “move forward and approve a transaction if we find that doing so serves the public interest. If there’s businesses out there that are still promoting invidious forms of DEI discrimination, I really don’t see a path forward where the FCC could reach the conclusion that approving the transaction is going to be in the public interest.”

The idea that the FCC could threaten M&A activity for DEI reasons is a novel tactic that could not only threaten billions of dollars’ worth of deals currently under review, but significantly increase the power of the FCC to influence the business practices of private companies. The FCC is currently reviewing Paramount’s proposed merger with Skydance Media and Verizon’s deal to acquire Frontier Communications.

Exactly what policies constitute problematic DEI promotions for Carr is not immediately clear, however guidance released by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suggests that practices such as recruiting and mentorship programs, employee resource groups, trainings and networking events that are not available to employees of all backgrounds could be deemed discriminatory. Carr also said he is taking advice from anti-DEI activist Robby Starbuck and is hoping to tap into Starbuck’s network of company contacts to uncover evidence of superficial changes.