Month: April 2025

Antitrust Uncertainty

Tariffs are not the only area of Trump’s economic policy causing confusion in the business world. Corporate executives, investment bankers, and others are struggling to make sense of the administration’s stance on antitrust matters.

At first, it seemed that antitrust would come under assault as part of Trump’s broad offensive against regulation. Project 2025 included a plan for dismantling the Federal Trade Commission, which shares responsibility in this field with the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. Trump wasted no time in naming Republican commissioner Andrew Ferguson to chair the agency, replacing Lina Khan, who had taken an aggressive approach toward enforcement. Trump subsequently fired the remaining two Democratic commissioners.

Trump’s choice to head the Antitrust Division, Abigail Slater, had earlier in her career been an FTC staff lawyer but then worked for the Internet Association, Big Tech’s trade group. During the first Trump Administration, she served on the National Economic Council and went on to become a policy adviser to JD Vance while he was in the Senate. She was presented as an antitrust hardliner.

Under Ferguson’s leadership, the FTC has seemingly gone in two directions. On the one hand, it seems to have cut back its enforcement activity and has announced only one significant penalty action. At the same time, it has been pursuing a lawsuit originally filed in 2021 accusing Meta Platforms of using unlawful means to crush competition to its social media services.

There has also been ambiguity at the Antitrust Division. It has also announced little in the way of penalties, yet it continued a major lawsuit against Google and recently won a major court ruling that the search engine company has maintained an illegal monopoly over online advertising technology.

The FTC and the DOJ also have the power to block mergers that would improperly limit competition. Surprisingly, the agencies said in February that they would continue to follow the merger guidelines adopted during the Biden Administration. Yet the application of those guidelines have been uneven.

The DOJ sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s acquisition of Juniper Networks. Capital One’s $35 billion takeover of Discover Financial Services was allowed to proceed. It is unclear whether there will be objections to Google’s proposed $32 billion purchase of the cloud security company Wiz.

The uncertainty over merger policy, together with the tariff chaos, has led to a drop-off in deals. This is bad news for investment bankers and transaction attorneys but not the worst thing for the country.

Overall, the Trump Administration’s antitrust policy has been a lot less harmful than the slash and burn approach to regulatory agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is notable that the more aggressive actions are directed against a single sector: Big Tech. The efforts of tech executives such as Mark Zuckerberg to ingratiate themselves with the Trump Administration have not paid off.

Although some MAGA figures have promoted the tough-on-tech approach for policy reasons, when it comes to Trump himself, the motivations are probably more personal. He has long harbored resentment against Facebook for banning him in the wake of the January 6 riots. And he complained that Google search results supposedly favor his critics.

Since Trump’s antitrust policies may depend on his whims, they are ultimately unreliable. As with trade, uncertainty will likely remain the order of the day.

Enforcement Inaction

The Trump Administration has declared war on business regulation, both overtly and covertly. Most visible has been the barrage of executive orders that cripple or eliminate rules without going through the normal review procedures. Since the beginning of this month, Trump has put his Sharpie to orders that instruct agencies to unilaterally repeal regulations they deem unlawful and to insert sunset provisions into others.

There is also a quiet form of deregulation stemming from the fact that many agencies have scaled back their enforcement activities. It is difficult to determine how much of this is being caused by operational disruptions linked to DOGE-instigated layoffs and how much stems from deliberate decisions to abandon cases, but the result is a sharp drop-off in the number of announced fines and settlements.

Let’s focus on the agencies that normally handle the biggest cases. Not surprisingly, the most dramatic decline has come at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Elon Musk has targeted for elimination. Since Trump took office, the agency has announced only one new resolved case. On January 30 the payment service Wise was ordered to pay a $2 million fine for misleading customers.  Since then, instead of new penalties, the agency has issued press releases about “regulatory relief” as well as a remarkable statement which criticized an anti-redlining action brought by the agency during the Biden Administration. In November, the CFPB had fined Townstone Financial $105,000 to settle allegations that the firm discouraged African Americans from applying for mortgages. Calling that case “abusive” and “unjust,” Acting CFPB Director Russ Vought vacated the settlement and returned the $105,000 to Townstone.

Since the inauguration, the Securities and Exchange Commission has announced only about a dozen resolved cases against companies. During the same period (January 20-April 16) of last year, the SEC announced more than 40 penalties. There is also a disparity in the amounts recovered. During that period last year, the average penalty was above $8 million; this year it has been about $2 million. Last year’s defendants included major companies such as Volkswagen and U.S. Bancorp; this year’s list includes much smaller firms.

The caseload at the Federal Trade Commission has also been low. Since January 20 it has announced only two penalties—one for $193,000 and another for $17 million. During the same period last year, the agency announced 11 penalties totaling more than $350 million. These are only cases with monetary sanctions, unlike the current lawsuit being pursued by the FTC against Meta Platforms, which, if successful, would likely result in structural changes at the company.

The situation at the Justice Department is more mixed. Combining both main Justice and the U.S. Attorneys Offices around the country, there have been nearly 70 announcements of penalties against businesses.

More than 50 of these actions were brought under the False Claims Act, the law designed to combat cheating by federal contractors, including healthcare companies dealing with Medicare and other Medicaid. Very few cases were brought in many of the other categories DOJ normally covers.

It is encouraging that DOJ is still paying attention to contractor abuse, but it is ironic that this is happening at the same time DOGE has been largely ignoring that abuse in its purported campaign to combat fraud at federal agencies. Perhaps the remaining righteous prosecutors at DOJ should teach Elon Musk where to look.

From Pro Bono to Pro Malo

When lawyers do pro bono work, it is assumed they are helping a worthy cause. Donald Trump has twisted this concept and made it part of his effort to punish law firms he views as enemies while furthering his retrograde environmental policies. He has created what amounts to pro malo publico—an activity that that promotes a public evil.

At a White House event during which Trump signed several executive orders promoting greater domestic coal production and consumption, he announced plans to pressure law firms to provide free legal services to coal companies to assist in leasing and other issues.

The firms involved would include those that have made deals with Trump to avoid punitive measures he threatened to impose on them because they represented Trump’s perceived enemies. As part of those deals, firms such as Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps agreed to provide pro bono services worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It was widely assumed these services would go to non-profit organizations, presumably with an emphasis on those with a pro-MAGA orientation.

Now Trump is taking the outlandish position that the recipients should include for-profit corporations. There is perhaps no industry less deserving of special assistance than coal. Much of the world is moving away from the black rock because of its outsized contribution to global warming and other forms of pollution.

Trump, who had made coal a centerpiece of his 2016 presidential campaign but was not able to do much to stem the industry’s decline, is now trying again. In doing so, he is seeking to prop up a sector whose harms are not limited to exacerbation of the climate crisis.

Among the largest producers is Core Natural Resources, the result of the 2024 merger of Arch Resources and CONSOL Energy. In Violation Tracker these companies account for more than $230 million in fines and settlements from some 800 enforcement actions relating to environmental and workplace safety infringements.

Another repeat offender is James C. Justice Companies, whose namesake is now a U.S. senator from West Virginia. While Jim Justice was still in charge, the company racked up hundreds of safety violations and resisted paying millions of dollars in federal and state safety fines. In 2016 an NPR investigation concluded that Justice’s company was “the nation’s top mine safety delinquent.” Sen. Justice was one of the attendees at Trump’s signing event.

At that event, Trump vowed “to identify and fight every single unconstitutional state or local regulation that’s putting our coal miners out of business.” It seems likely that the law firms being dragooned into serving the coal producers will end up helping to challenge these rules.

We need not express any concern for the lawyers. Skadden and other firms that have made deals with Trump have represented coal clients in the past. The bigger problem is that a group of companies doing great harm will be receiving an indirect subsidy in the form of free legal services—and the result could be a weakening of environmental and workplace safeguards. In other words, pro malo publico.

The Other U.S.-EU Economic Conflict

Tariffs are not the only economic arena in which the United States and Europe are at loggerheads. The Trump Administration and the European Union are coming to blows with regard to the oversight of business.

Trump, of course, is on a rampage against corporate regulation, especially when it comes to the environment and cryptocurrency. Rules are being slashed and enforcement is being reduced to the bare minimum. The one way in which Trump is coming down hard on business is his move to get companies to abandon anything that smacks of diversity and equity.

Now the administration is trying to export its anti-DEI crusade to Europe. The French newspaper Le Figaro recently reported that the American embassy in Paris sent letters to local companies demanding that they renounce DEI as a condition of doing business with the U.S. government. It later came out that similar letters were issued by the U.S. embassies in countries such as Belgium, Italy, and Spain.

European government officials have condemned the effort, accusing the Trump Administration of trying to impose its domestic culture war values on other countries. This critique of ideological imperialism is strong even in France, which tries to ignore race and has largely shunned DEI.

While the U.S. is promoting this frivolous oversight of foreign companies, Europe is getting tougher in its serious regulation of American corporations, especially the tech giants. The French antitrust authority just fined Apple 150 million euros for using a privacy feature in an anti-competitive manner. Last year the European Commission fined the company 1.8 billion euros for abusing its dominant position in the market for the distribution of music streaming apps and ordered Apple to repay 13 billion euros in improper tax breaks it received from Ireland.

An Italian court recently ordered Google to pay 326 million euros to resolve allegations it failed to pay proper taxes on its earnings. The company is still fighting a 4 billion euro fine imposed by the EU in 2018 for placing illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in internet search market.

Last year the EU fined Meta Platforms nearly 800 million euros for imposing unfair trading conditions on other online classified ads service providers. Microsoft’s LinkedIn service was fined 310 million euros by the Irish Data Protection Commission for improper processing of personal data for the purposes of behavioral analysis and targeted advertising. Numerous other cases can be found by searching Violation Tracker Global.

Trump has taken note of such cases, and his new tariffs on EU countries are likely in part a form of retaliation. Yet there are no signs Europe is being cowed. In fact, the EU is expected to include regulatory measures against U.S. tech and financial companies in its response to Trump’s trade offensive.

While they may have misgivings about tariffs, U.S. companies seem inclined to seek help from the Trump Administration with their EU regulatory problems. The Wall Street Journal just reported that Mark Zuckerberg is lobbying U.S. officials to respond strongly to an expected EU ruling against Meta Platforms.

Zuckerberg is wasting his time. The Trump Administration is in no position to thwart EU enforcement actions. Everything it does only hardens Europe’s resistance.