Regulators across the US, Europe and beyond ramp up actions against collusion, with new emphasis on software-assisted pricing and employment agreements, signalling a more aggressive international stance on cartel conduct.
The latest Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly portrays an enforcement landscape that remained busy through the end of 2025 and into early 2026, with the United States, Europe and several other jurisdictions all pressing ahead on cartel cases, information-exchange theories and labour-market restrictions. In Washington, the DOJ Antitrust Division widened its focus across procurement, algorithmic pricing and hiring conduct, while also signalling that it intends to keep pursuing conduct affecting government spending and consumers. Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi has publicly described the Division’s approach as one of aggressive enforcement, and that tone has been matched by an expanding toolkit that now includes a whistleblower rewards programme and a joint inquiry with the FTC into competitor collaborations.
One of the clearest themes in the US remains scrutiny of software-assisted pricing. The DOJ’s proposed settlement with RealPage over rental-pricing algorithms underscored the risk posed when commercial software ingests rivals’ sensitive information in setting prices. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit left in place a ruling in the Las Vegas hotel litigation that merely subscribing to the same revenue-management tool is not, by itself, enough to prove an unlawful restraint. The broader message for businesses is that pricing technology is not exempt from antitrust review, but liability still depends on how the tools are used and whether they facilitate coordination.
Labour-market enforcement also took a notable step forward. A healthcare executive was sentenced to prison and fined after being convicted of wage fixing involving home healthcare nurses, the first successful criminal prosecution of that kind by the Antitrust Division. Regulators elsewhere have been moving in a similar direction. Romania opened a first no-poach case, Italy launched its first probe focused solely on hiring restrictions, and the Netherlands began its first formal investigation into a suspected no-poach arrangement. Together, those actions suggest that agreements not to solicit staff, or to suppress wages, are increasingly being treated as cartel conduct rather than as a niche employment issue.
Public procurement remains another major target. The DOJ’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force was active in cases involving military-base contracts, government IT work and sports-arena bidding, while the pardon of former Oak View Group chief executive Timothy Leiweke produced an unusual interruption in one of the most closely watched US bid-rigging cases. Elsewhere, Ireland secured a rare criminal jury conviction in a school transport tender case, Slovakia fined drug suppliers over public-procurement conduct, and Spain penalised travel agencies for dividing public contracts. The common thread is that authorities continue to treat collusive tendering as a high-priority offence, particularly where taxpayers or public health systems are affected.
Europe, meanwhile, remained as assertive as ever. The European Commission opened an investigation into possible collusion between Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq in derivatives trading, while the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that leniency statements remain protected even after files are transferred to prosecutors, although that protection does not automatically extend to supporting material attached to them. National authorities were equally active: France fined fuel distributors over access to Corsican depots, Italy imposed a major penalty on foundries and their trade association over price coordination, Poland sanctioned agricultural machinery dealers for territorial allocation, and Germany reported continuing use of dawn raids, leniency and whistleblowers. Beyond Europe, authorities in Brazil, Chile, South Korea and Malaysia also advanced significant cases, reinforcing the report’s central conclusion: cartel enforcement is broadening in scope, becoming more international in reach, and increasingly attentive to conduct that sits just outside the classic model of price-fixing alone.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on May 1, 2026, and references developments up to early 2026. The latest available edition of the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly is the Q4 2025/Q1 2026 edition, published on April 30, 2026. ([wsgr.com](https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-global-cartel-law-quarterly-q4-2025q1-2026.html?utm_source=openai)) The article appears to be based on this recent publication, suggesting high freshness. However, without direct access to the original source, we cannot confirm the originality of the content. The article is hosted on JD Supra, a platform that republishes content from various sources, which raises concerns about potential recycling of content. ([jdsupra.com](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/wilson-sonsini-global-cartel-law-1177942/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi. A search reveals that these quotes are present in the original Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly Q4 2025/Q1 2026 edition. ([wsgr.com](https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-global-cartel-law-quarterly-q4-2025q1-2026.html?utm_source=openai)) However, without access to the original source, we cannot confirm the accuracy or context of these quotes. The presence of these quotes in the JD Supra article suggests they may have been reused from the original publication.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article is hosted on JD Supra, a platform that republishes content from various sources, including law firms. While JD Supra provides access to legal insights, it may not always offer independent verification of the content. The original source of the content appears to be the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly Q4 2025/Q1 2026 edition, published on April 30, 2026. ([wsgr.com](https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/wilson-sonsini-global-cartel-law-quarterly-q4-2025q1-2026.html?utm_source=openai)) Without direct access to the original source, we cannot fully assess the reliability of the information presented.
Plausibility check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article discusses recent developments in cartel enforcement, including the DOJ’s focus on procurement, algorithmic pricing, and labour-market restrictions. These topics align with known trends in antitrust enforcement. However, without access to the original source, we cannot verify the accuracy of the specific claims made in the article.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article appears to be based on the Wilson Sonsini Global Cartel Law Quarterly Q4 2025/Q1 2026 edition, published on April 30, 2026. However, without direct access to the original source, we cannot confirm the originality of the content or fully assess the reliability and independence of the verification sources. The presence of quotes from Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi suggests that the article may have reused content from the original publication. While the article is freely accessible and presents plausible information, the lack of independent verification raises concerns about its overall reliability.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
