Antitrust & Competition Technology 2024 Year in Review

Introduction

As we look back on 2024, one thing is clear: Antitrust enforcement in the technology sector continued at a steady pace, with global agencies showing no signs of relenting in their scrutiny of Big Tech companies. Perhaps most notably, artificial intelligence emerged as a central focus for antitrust authorities, who launched investigations into the rapidly evolving industry and began developing regulatory positions. These agencies grappled with complex questions around market power and jurisdiction as they worked to apply existing frameworks to generative AI technology and strategic partnerships that often defied traditional regulatory boundaries. Regulators have also pursued numerous high-profile antitrust cases against digital platforms for alleged anticompetitive practices while implementing significant new pieces of legislation. These included the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (the DMCC Act), both representing major attempts at addressing competition concerns in the digital economy.

Looking ahead, 2025 is set to be a pivotal year for antitrust in the technology sector. Google’s remedies trial in April will determine whether structural changes will be required to address its search monopoly, which would have major impacts on the broader digital ecosystem. Meta’s trial in April focuses on its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, testing antitrust limits on social media and decades-old mergers. Amazon’s case, with a June trial date, will focus on alleged anticompetitive practices related to most-favored-nation pricing arrangements and Amazon’s flagship Prime program. These cases will highlight regulators’ attempts to rein in exclusivity agreements, bundling, integration, platform dominance, and AI integration, shaping precedents for antitrust enforcement in digital markets.

The broadening of HSR filing requirements, jurisdictional thresholds in the UK and many EU member states, and the application of newly introduced digital markets legislation in the UK and EU point, in principle, to the potential for heightened regulatory scrutiny. However, shifting political dynamics — such as new US agency leadership that has expressed concerns about overregulation, the UK’s new Labour government prioritizing economic growth, and the EU’s push for modernizing competition law — may ease the intensity of enforcement. Time will tell. Amid these developments, regulators face a dual challenge: maintaining robust enforcement while creating conditions that support innovation and dealmaking. The approach taken in 2025 will not only shape the regulatory landscape but likely have a significant impact on the competitive dynamics of the global technology sector.

Artificial Intelligence: The New Antitrust Frontier

The swift rise of generative AI and associated foundational models has prompted antitrust agencies worldwide to sharpen their focus on recent M&A and other collaborations in the AI space. Two primary themes have characterized the antitrust discourse. The first is the substance of how partnerships and Big Tech activity more generally in the AI space may influence market power and competition. The second is jurisdiction — the threshold question of whether agencies can review a particular AI-related deal.

Potential Antitrust Concerns: Nvidia’s Hardware Dominance and Big Tech’s Expanding Influence

In August 2024, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly launched an antitrust investigation into Nvidia, focusing on allegations that the company was engaging in anticompetitive practices in the AI chip market, where it holds over 80% market share.¹ The DOJ is examining whether Nvidia abuses its dominant position by pressuring customers not to use competitors’ products, imposing exclusive purchasing requirements, or tying sales of its chips to other products. The DOJ’s probe also includes scrutiny of whether Nvidia’s acquisition of Run:ai could restrict customer flexibility to switch suppliers.

The investigation escalated in September 2024, when the DOJ issued subpoenas to Nvidia and other companies, signaling a move toward potential formal charges. While Nvidia faces parallel inquiries in the EU, UK, South Korea, and China, the company maintains that it competes on the merits and provides customers with choice. This case highlights growing regulatory concern about bottlenecks in the AI technology stack and potential barriers to entry for chip competitors such as AMD and Intel. Regulators could face challenges in proving antitrust violations given Nvidia’s early-mover advantage in developing specialized AI chips.

While European regulators have yet to publish a detailed, case-specific, substantive analysis of AI partnerships — beyond the more-detailed scrutiny of the Microsoft/Inflection deal that the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) undertook — several have issued policy papers and briefings signaling their key concerns. The European Commission released a Competition Policy Brief on competition in generative AI in September 2024.² National antitrust agencies in Europe, including the CMA and the French Autorité de la concurrence, have so far focused on how the control of key inputs to develop AI capabilities (chips, talent, cloud computing, and capital) by large digital incumbents could potentially allow the latter to extend their market power or give them the ability to foreclose competing AI models.

Jurisdictional Challenges: Beyond Traditional Mergers

Procedurally, competition authorities are increasingly asserting jurisdiction over unconventional deal structures in the AI sector, particularly “acqui-hires,” in which companies license IP and hire key personnel from a company rather than acquire the entire business. This was exemplified in the CMA’s review of the Microsoft/Inflection deal, in which it determined that Microsoft’s acquisition of key assets and employee hires from Inflection constituted a “relevant merger situation” because the CMA concluded Microsoft acquired Inflection’s capacity to continue its development of consumer-facing AI products, effectively integrating Inflection’s road map, collaborative expertise, and market potential. The European Commission and German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) adopted similar positions, considering the transaction to be a notifiable merger under their jurisdictional frameworks. (The FCO did not review the deal because it failed to meet Germany’s jurisdictional thresholds.)

Regulatory agencies also scrutinized partnerships and investments between Big Tech and AI companies. While the CMA found that Microsoft/Mistral,³ Amazon/Anthropic,⁴ and Alphabet/Anthropic⁵ did not qualify as mergers because of insufficient control over the target firms’ strategic and commercial policies, Microsoft’s investment in OpenAI faced a more detailed review. The CMA opened its investigation following OpenAI’s CEO dismissal and reinstatement in November 2023, assessing whether Microsoft’s control had increased from material influence to de facto control. While the CMA concluded that Microsoft has held material influence over OpenAI since 2019, recent changes in the companies’ partnership — including adjustments to Microsoft’s compute supply rights — led the CMA to determine that Microsoft had not acquired de facto control. As a result, the CMA concluded that the investment did not qualify as a “relevant merger situation” under UK law.

The antitrust landscape for AI deals in 2024 was characterized by regulators’ heightened vigilance and expanded interpretations of merger-review frameworks. As authorities examine how minority investments, licensing agreements, and acqui-hires might reshape competition in the fast-moving AI sector, both established tech giants and emerging AI developers must navigate partnerships with greater caution and prepare for closer regulatory scrutiny than ever before.

Major Antitrust Enforcement for Big Tech Platforms Across the Globe

Last year brought major developments in enforcement actions, with landmark rulings and significant legal challenges that could reshape the competitive landscape of the digital economy. In the United States, federal courts progressed agencies’ monopolization claims against technology giants: Google was found to have illegally maintained its search monopoly, Meta’s Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions are set for a pivotal April 2025 trial, and cases are proceeding against Apple and Amazon. Meanwhile, European regulators imposed record-breaking fines on Apple and Meta for abusing their dominant positions, signaling an intensified transatlantic regulatory approach to curbing what authorities view as anticompetitive practices in digital markets.

Google Found to Have Illegally Maintained Search Monopoly

In August 2024, the US District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a landmark antitrust ruling, finding that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in general search and search advertising markets through exclusionary practices.⁶ The court ruled that Google’s exclusive default search engine agreements with device manufacturers and browsers violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by blocking competitors from accessing significant market share and depriving rivals of essential user data. The court found that Google was dominant in search, controlling 89.2% of the general search market and 94.9% on mobile devices, and maintained that dominance through billions in annual payments to partners. According to the ruling, these agreements created a self-reinforcing cycle through which Google’s search monopoly led to higher advertising prices and further market entrenchment, effectively preventing competitors such as Bing and DuckDuckGo from gaining traction.

The case proceeded to a phase regarding the appropriate remedy in late 2024. The DOJ proposed far-reaching remedies, including divestiture of the Chrome browser and, potentially, Android OS to eliminate Google’s control over key search distribution channels. It also proposed a ban on Google acquiring query-based AI products. The DOJ’s proposed conduct remedies included terminating exclusive default search agreements with device manufacturers and browsers, mandating the sharing of search index data and user queries with competitors at no cost, and allowing publishers to opt out of having their content used for AI training or display.

The proposals faced significant criticism, with organizations such as the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation arguing they exceeded the court’s findings and risked micromanaging Google’s business operations.⁷ Critics also warned that enforced data sharing and structural divestitures could stifle innovation and undermine US technology leadership. In response to the DOJ’s proposal, Google offered more-limited remedies, including nonexclusive Android agreements and unbundling Google Play, while rejecting the more extreme measures.

The remedies trial is scheduled to take place in April 2025. Although Google plans to appeal and a final resolution may take years, the case already represents a significant victory in the US government’s first major antitrust case against a tech giant. The ultimate ruling — particularly if structural remedies are imposed — could substantially reshape the search and advertising landscape for the foreseeable future.

FTC’s Case Against Meta Survives Summary Judgment and Heads to Trial

In November 2024, Judge James Boasberg of the DC District Court denied Meta’s motion for summary judgment of the antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), ruling that substantial evidence supports allegations that Meta’s Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions violated antitrust laws by maintaining a monopoly in personal social networking.⁸ The court found that internal documents and Mark Zuckerberg’s statements demonstrated these platforms were competitors when acquired, supporting the FTC’s contention that Meta neutralized potential rivals to stifle competition. While dismissing claims about third-party developer access restrictions, Judge Boasberg determined the FTC sufficiently argued that these acquisitions harmed competition by reducing innovation, limiting consumer choice, and weakening privacy protections. The judge rejected Meta’s defense that the existence of TikTok and YouTube disproves monopoly power.

This pivotal ruling sets the stage for an April 2025 trial that will test the boundaries of antitrust enforcement in technology mergers. If the FTC is successful, the case could establish groundbreaking precedent for divestitures of previously approved tech acquisitions and potentially chill the aggressive acquisition strategies that have defined Silicon Valley’s growth for decades.

The FTC’s Case Against Amazon Survives Motion to Dismiss

In September 2024, a federal judge gave the green light for the government’s antitrust case against Amazon to move forward.⁹ Judge John Chun rejected Amazon’s attempt to dismiss the main allegations in the FTC’s lawsuit, clearing it to proceed with its core claims.

The FTC’s lawsuit targets what it sees as the company’s illegal monopoly in two key markets: online retail for consumers and marketplace services for sellers. At the center of the case is Amazon’s treatment of sellers who offer better prices elsewhere. The FTC claims that Amazon punishes merchants who list lower prices on other platforms, effectively forcing them to keep prices high across the internet. According to the complaint, sellers face substantial fees that make it costly to list products on other platforms, while a secretive pricing algorithm called Project Nessie allegedly predicted and encouraged other companies to match Amazon’s price increases. Another key allegation is that Amazon pressures sellers to use its Fulfillment by Amazon logistics services by making it nearly impossible for sellers to reach Prime customers without it. Finally, the complaint spotlights Amazon’s search practices, alleging the company has degraded the shopping experience by flooding results with paid advertisements and manipulating rankings to favor its own products.

Amazon maintains that its practices benefit consumers through low prices and fast delivery, insisting that sellers freely choose whether to use Amazon’s fulfillment or advertising services and emphasizing that 80% of retail sales still occur offline. Throughout the dispute, Amazon has framed the FTC’s lawsuit as fundamentally anti-consumer, arguing that if successful, it would lead to higher prices and slower deliveries. The company portrays its success as the result of innovation rather than anticompetitive behavior. While a substantial portion of the FTC’s case remains intact, Amazon’s defense strategy focuses on disproving monopoly power allegations and demonstrating that its business practices align with competitive market dynamics.

The outcome of the trial, scheduled for June 2025, could establish precedent-setting boundaries on platform power, particularly regarding most-favored-nation pricing arrangements and the leveraging of marketplace platforms to advantage affiliated services. Like the DOJ’s case against Apple, this case highlights the evolving tension between innovation and regulation. The court’s decision will likely influence not only e-commerce but also other emerging digital markets, affecting everything from algorithmic transparency requirements to how platforms can bundle services.

DOJ Brings Apple Smartphone Case

In March 2024, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple alleging that the company maintains an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market. The lawsuit claims Apple uses anticompetitive practices to maintain its dominance and stifle innovation, including limitations on how third-party apps and services can interact with iPhone hardware and software, restrictions that prevent cross-platform messaging apps from working properly with iMessage, prohibitions on cloud streaming apps for gaming and other services, restrictions preventing third-party digital wallets and smartwatches from accessing iPhone features, and App Store policies to suppress “super apps” that could reduce reliance on iPhones. The DOJ argues these practices lock consumers into Apple’s ecosystem, making it difficult and expensive to switch to Android devices.

Apple strongly rejected the Department of Justice’s antitrust allegations, filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which it characterizes as fundamentally flawed both legally and factually. The company maintained that it operates in a highly competitive market in which consumers can easily switch to alternatives from Samsung, Google, and others, and argued that the DOJ failed to demonstrate either supra-competitive pricing or output restrictions that would substantiate monopolistic behavior. Apple contends that its market success stems from innovation rather than anticompetitive practices.

This case represents a pivotal moment in US tech regulation. In contrast with European regulators, US competition regulation is largely done through litigated enforcement of broadly drafted antitrust laws. Given Apple’s integrated business model and the specific practices under scrutiny, this case will likely set crucial precedents. Rulings in this case will establish where courts draw the line between promoting market competition and respecting companies’ rights to maintain closed ecosystems when justified by security concerns and user experience priorities. Beyond Apple, the ruling could trigger industry-wide changes in how tech giants manage their platforms, potentially forcing more interoperability and openness across previously closed systems. As courts weigh competing visions of innovation — one emphasizing open competition versus another prioritizing private autonomy — their decisions will influence not just smartphone markets but also emerging technologies such as AI, augmented reality, and digital payments.

European Commission Fines Apple and Meta and Investigates Microsoft for Abuse of Dominance

The European Commission handed down a record-breaking fine of over €1.8 billion to Apple in March 2024 for anticompetitive conduct in its App Store.¹⁰ Apple’s “anti-steering” obligations were found to prevent app developers from informing users about potentially cheaper subscription options outside the App Store — an unfair trading condition in violation of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). According to the Commission, these obligations lead to higher prices for iOS users. The unprecedented size of Apple’s fine — far exceeding the typical baseline under the Commission’s fining guidelines — was intended to serve as a strong deterrent.

In November 2024, the European Commission fined Meta €797.72 million for abusing its dominant position by tying its classified-ad service, Facebook Marketplace, to its social network, Facebook, and for imposing unfair trading conditions on rival classified-ad providers.¹¹ The Commission argued that this conduct automatically exposed Facebook users to Marketplace — granting Meta a critical distribution advantage — and allowed Meta to exploit ad-related data from competitors. These practices were deemed violations of Article 102 of the TFEU, leading to a record penalty. Meta submitted an appeal against the decision in January 2025, but the company will in the meantime comply with the Commission’s decision.

Meanwhile, the Commission neared the final stages of its investigation into the bundling of Microsoft Teams with Office 365, with a Statement of Objections issued in June 2024 alleging that the company’s practice of automatically including Teams in Office subscriptions deprives customers of real choice and could foreclose competing communication tools.¹²

Although the legal framework around tying and other exclusionary abuses is well established, the prevalence of vertical integration in Big Tech has, in agencies’ eyes, given new urgency to these issues. The Commission’s recent decisions clarify how such practices will be scrutinized, and its forthcoming guidelines on exclusionary conduct — taking effect in 2025 — will formalize this approach. Together with the DMA, these developments mark a decisive turn in the Commission’s efforts to curb what it views as anticompetitive practices within digital markets.

A New Regulatory Landscape for Digital Markets in Europe and the UK

EU: The DMA Takes Center Stage

2024 marked an important legislative milestone for Big Tech in Europe. On March 7, the EU’s landmark DMA entered into force, designed to arm the European Commission with a tool kit to monitor and safeguard competition and fairness in digital marketplaces.

Companies designated under the DMA as “gatekeepers” will be obliged to comply with defined obligations and prohibitions when offering “core platform services.” These rules codify conduct that under preexisting legal powers had already been scrutinized by the Commission — such as self-preferencing and prohibiting so-called anti-steering or most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses.

In 2024, the Commission added Booking.com to the existing list of gatekeepers, which already included Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance (TikTok), Meta, and Microsoft.¹³ Signaling its readiness to enforce the DMA promptly, the Commission quickly opened multiple investigations into alleged noncompliance with the DMA;¹⁴ the Commission aims to conclude these investigations within a year and has indicated that further probes may follow.

• Alphabet (Google) has come under investigation for alleged anti-steering practices in the Google Play Store and for self-preferencing in Google Search. 
• Apple is being scrutinized for similar anti-steering practices in its App Store, where it allegedly prevents developers from informing users about potentially cheaper subscription options outside Apple’s ecosystem. 
• Meta is under investigation for its “pay or consent” model, which requires users to either accept targeted advertising or pay for an ad-free experience.

Facing heightened regulatory pressure, gatekeepers have already started realigning their business operations to ward off potential enforcement actions. For example, Apple announced it will allow more flexibility for app developers — including possible support for alternative app stores and broader interoperability within iOS — to meet the DMA’s fair-treatment obligations.¹⁵ Similarly, Amazon has made changes to how it ranks and presents search results, aiming to address potential self-preferencing concerns.¹⁶ Meanwhile, Google is exploring different payment models for app transactions to comply with anti-steering rules and is reviewing how it prioritizes its own services in search results.¹⁷ These proactive adaptations underscore the DMA’s immediate practical impact.

UK: A Tailored Approach With the DMCC Act

Across the Channel, the UK’s new DMCC Act completed its legislative passage through Parliament in 2024 and took effect on January 1, 2025. While it has a similar objective to the EU DMA, the DMCC Act diverges in how it seeks to achieve it: Instead of the DMA’s “one-size-fits-all” list of obligations, the UK CMA can craft bespoke conduct requirements and pro-competitive interventions for individual firms designated with special market status (SMS).

The DMCC Act also introduces a stringent reporting regime under which SMS firms must inform the CMA of all investments exceeding £25 million in value for stakes as small as 15% in companies active in the UK.

Acting swiftly under its new powers, the CMA initiated investigations in January 2025 to evaluate potential SMS designations for: (i) Alphabet (covering Google Search, digital advertising, and its mobile ecosystem)¹⁸ and (ii) Apple (for its mobile ecosystem).¹⁹ Given the CMA’s new enforcement powers, these inquiries could herald significant operational changes for both companies — and signal a new era of digital regulation in the UK.

Overall, 2024 and early 2025 have ushered in a new wave of digital regulation in both the EU and the UK. While the DMA provides a uniform set of obligations and prohibitions for gatekeepers, the UK’s DMCC Act empowers the CMA to impose more customized remedies. As companies work toward regulatory compliance, a key question remains: Will the political climate under the new US administration prompt European regulators to exercise caution in enforcing these regimes? Despite the litany of major US enforcement actions against Big Tech companies, discussed above, senior Trump administration officials have publicly decried what they view as excessive EU regulation of US Big Tech, which may prompt European authorities to better align with their US counterparts to avoid imposing measures that could fundamentally disrupt these companies’ business models.

Shifting Merger Control Jurisdiction and Filing Requirements

Illumina/Grail Limits EC Referral Jurisdiction

On September 3, 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) overturned the General Court’s decision in the Illumina/Grail case, effectively ruling that the Commission cannot encourage or accept referrals for below-threshold deals from national competition authorities if those authorities lack the power to review the merger under their own laws (see our update here for further information on the ruling). Despite this initial setback for the Commission, dealmakers should remain vigilant. A growing number of jurisdictions within the EU now have transaction value-based thresholds or “call-in” powers that allow competition authorities to review deals falling below traditional turnover-based criteria. Indeed, in October 2024, the Italian competition authority invoked its call-in power to refer Nvidia’s acquisition of Run:ai to the Commission for review. Although the Commission ultimately cleared the deal unconditionally, its acceptance of the referral underscores its ongoing determination to scrutinize below-threshold transactions. Nvidia appealed the referral decision to the General Court in January 2025, leaving unresolved questions about the legal robustness of national call-in powers as a tool for extending merger review. This development is being closely monitored by the antitrust community, given its potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for transactions that would otherwise escape scrutiny.

Changes to UK Merger Control Thresholds

Meanwhile, in the UK, the DMCC Act introduced significant updates to merger review thresholds effective January 1, 2025. Previously, the CMA could claim jurisdiction via the turnover test (target turnover of at least £70 million) or the share-of-supply test (parties jointly exceeding a 25% share of supply in the UK). The DMCC Act maintains the 25% share-of-supply test but raises the turnover threshold to £100 million. Notably, a new third jurisdictional test now allows the CMA to review any deal in which one party has UK turnover of at least £350 million and a 33% share of supply in the UK — provided the other party has any UK “activities,” broadly defined (in other words, removing the prior focus on whether the merging parties generated a competitive overlap in the UK).

Although the CMA has already pushed the limits of its jurisdiction under the share-of-supply test with minimal judicial resistance, this new jurisdictional hook further empowers the CMA, particularly in the technology sector, where targets frequently have minimal or no direct UK revenues but maintain user bases or other forms of digital activity in the UK.

Major Changes to HSR Form and Disclosure Requirements

In the final quarter of 2024, the US FTC and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ announced the final version of their much-anticipated updated HSR requirements. Although a pending lawsuit challenges the new rules,²⁰ they went into effect on February 10, 2025.

The new HSR rules drastically expand the scope of information and documents transacting parties are required to provide in their HSR filings. We anticipate that several new requirements will have a significant impact on parties to strategic transactions in the tech sector:

• Expansion of internal documents required to be filed. Under the old rules, parties were required to produce documents related to competition topics such as competitors or market shares only if those documents were prepared as part of the transaction process. Under the new rules, in addition to transaction-related documents, parties will be required to include with their filings certain ordinary course documents that assess competition topics related to products that overlap with the other party.  
• Description of party relationships (including competitive overlaps). The new rules require the parties to identify and describe any of the parties’ existing or planned products or services that compete or that the parties supply to one another. For each such relationship, the filing parties must also submit data related to top customers and revenue as well as potential regulatory approvals and projected sales for products in development.
• Party and transaction details. The new rules require parties to provide details about transaction rationale, information about the ownership structure for both parties, which includes controlling limited partners, structure charts, and identify of directors and officers, including their positions in other companies.

The new rules will significantly impact the filing process in several key ways. Filing parties should anticipate that filings that previously took one to two weeks to prepare under the old rules will now likely take several weeks to over a month, depending on the complexity of the transaction. This increased preparation time will directly result in higher costs that companies need to budget for.

Additionally, the requirement to submit more internal documents means there is a higher chance that something will catch the attention of reviewing agencies. This is likely to prompt more questions from regulators that filing parties will need to address.

In light of these changes, organizations going through the HSR filing process will need to allocate more time and resources not just for preparing the initial submission but also for responding to regulator questions and requests throughout the extended review period. Proactive planning will be key to navigating the filing process effectively under this new regulatory regime.

Outlook for 2025: The Year Ahead

As we progress through 2025, antitrust enforcement in the technology sector is at a crossroads. While 2024 saw regulators worldwide maintain their rigorous scrutiny of Big Tech players, the emergence of AI as a central focus marked a new frontier for competition authorities. AI-related partnerships and acquisitions highlight the promise of innovation but at the same time raises agency concern about potential market distortions, prompting regulators to adopt novel approaches to jurisdictional thresholds and substantive analysis. Agencies globally are grappling with these challenges, working to ensure that antitrust tools remain effective in this rapidly evolving sector.

Looking ahead, several structural shifts signal a more complex regulatory environment for businesses. Jurisdictional expansions — such as the new HSR rules in the United States, the implementation of the DMCC Act in the UK, and growing reliance on call-in powers across Europe — mean that transactions, including below-threshold deals, will likely face ongoing scrutiny. These changes could impose significant notification burdens on merging parties and extend regulatory timelines.

However, political developments may offer a counterbalance in tech regulation. Under new leadership, US antitrust agencies are expected to maintain oversight of Big Tech while avoiding excessive intervention. Incoming FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson recently stated, “Big Tech is going to remain under the microscope,” and he plans to continue “holding Big Tech’s feet to the fire.”²¹ However, in a dissenting statement on an FTC report about AI partnerships, he cautioned against premature regulation of AI, saying the FTC “must not charge headlong to regulate AI. Such regulation could strangle this nascent technology in its cradle.”²²

Likewise, during her nomination hearing, Gail Slater, the incoming head of the DOJ Antitrust Division, cautioned against excessive regulation: “Regulation is often a sledgehammer; it applies to industries all at once regardless of a specific company’s conduct. Antitrust is a scalpel; it’s targeted enforcement, and it requires evidence of anticompetitive conduct and harmed consumers.”²³ Unlike the previous administration, Slater has shown support for certain structural remedies, stating: “Often remedies, if done right . . . can remove any competitive harm from a merger in order to allow it to proceed in a pro-consumer, pro-competitive manner.”

The UK’s Labour government is reshaping competition policy with an emphasis on economic growth, as exemplified by the departure of CMA Chair Marcus Bokkerink in January 2025 amid concerns that the agency was not sufficiently aligned with the government’s pro-growth agenda.²⁴ The CMA announced plans to accelerate decision-making, reducing prenotification periods and developing a Mergers Charter focused on pace, predictability, proportionality, and process. The CMA has also signaled a more flexible approach to remedies, as evident in the Vodafone/CK Hutchison merger approval in late 2024, and plans to provide clearer guidance on determining jurisdiction over partnerships and acqui-hires — a crucial consideration for AI sector deals.

In Europe, newly appointed Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera is working to balance rigorous enforcement with fostering innovation and economic growth, influenced by Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness.²⁵ Her mandate includes aligning competition policy more closely with industrial policy goals, including promoting innovation, addressing geopolitical challenges, and decarbonizing the economy. This shift suggests greater openness to efficiency and innovation defenses in dynamic and strategic sectors while maintaining scrutiny of “killer acquisitions” targeting nascent competitors.

These developments in Europe, alongside some pullback in the United States by the Trump administration, suggest a broader trend toward a more pragmatic regulatory approach after several years of aggressive expansion of oversight tools targeting Big Tech. This period may have marked a peak in enforcement, underscoring regulators’ determination to bring these companies within the reach of competition law.

Now, however, political pressures — including direct criticism from the Trump administration, which has accused European regulators of overregulating Big Tech — are pushing regulators toward a more balanced, business-friendly stance. There are signs that European authorities are recalibrating, seeking to maintain effective competition enforcement while fostering economic growth and investment. This shift reflects not only an effort to create a more predictable and measured enforcement framework but also a recognition of the evolving global market dynamics and the increasing importance of maintaining transatlantic alignment.

This duality — between sustained regulatory vigilance and a growing emphasis on fostering economic growth — will define 2025. Agencies will need to navigate tensions between maintaining robust antitrust enforcement in the tech sector and avoiding overreach that could stifle innovation or chill dealmaking. Businesses, in turn, must remain proactive, adapting to an environment where regulatory boundaries are evolving, but opportunities for constructive engagement and innovation-driven defenses are increasing.

^[1] Reuters, “US launches antitrust probe into Nvidia over sales practices” (Aug. 2, 2024). 
^[2] European Commission, “Competition Policy Brief: Competition in Generative AI and Virtual Worlds” (Sept. 2024).
^[3] CMA, “Microsoft Corporation’s partnership with Mistral AI: Decision on relevant merger situation” (May 17, 2024).
^[4] CMA, “Amazon.com Inc.’s partnership with Anthropic PBC Decision on relevant merger situation” (Sept. 27, 2024). 
^[5] CMA, “Alphabet Inc.’s partnership with Anthropic PBC Decision on relevant merger situation” (Nov. 19, 2024).  
^[6] United States v. Google, LLC, No. 20-cv-3010, 2024 WL 3647498 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2024).
^[7] Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, “Remedies in DOJ v. Google (Part I): Why a Breakup Is a Bad Idea” (Oct. 28, 2024). 
^[8] Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No 20-3590 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2024).
^[9] Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com, Inc., No 23-cv-01495 (Sept. 30, 2024).
^[10] European Commission, “Commission fines Apple over €1.8 billion over abusive App store rules for music streaming providers” (Mar. 3, 2024). 
^[11] European Commission, “Commission fines Meta €797.72 million over abusive practices benefitting Facebook Marketplace” (Nov. 13, 2024). 
^[12] European Commission, “Commission sends Statement of Objections to Microsoft over possibly abusive tying practices regarding Teams” (Jun. 24, 2024). 
^[13] European Commission, “Digital Markets Act: Commission designates six gatekeepers” (Sept. 5, 2023); European Commission, “Booking must now comply with the Digital Markets Act” (Nov. 14, 2024).
^[14] European Commission, “Commission opens non-compliance investigations against Alphabet, Apple and Meta under the Digital Markets Act” (Mar. 25, 2024).  
^[15] Apple, “Apple announces changes to iOS, Safari, and the App Store in the European Union” (Jan. 25, 2024). 
^[16] Amazon, “Amazon Ads and the Digital Markets Act” (Jan. 31, 2024). 
^[17] Google, “Complying with the Digital Markets Act” (Mar. 5, 2024). 
^[18] GOV.UK, “SMS investigation into Google’s mobile ecosystem” (Mar. 4, 2025). 
^[19] GOV.UK, “CMA to investigate Apple and Google's mobile ecosystems” (Jan. 23, 2025). 
^[20] On Friday, January 10, 2025, the US Chamber of Commerce, American Investment Council, Business Roundtable, and Longview Chamber of Commerce filed a joint lawsuit challenging the FTC’s and DOJ’s changes to the premerger notification form requirements under the HSR Act. The lawsuit requests a declaratory judgment that the New HSR Rules exceed the FTC’s and DOJ’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and requests an order either setting aside the New HSR Rules in their entirety or enjoining the FTC and DOJ from enforcing the New HSR Rules or any requirement therein. For further information, see Goodwin, “Business Groups File Lawsuit Challenging HSR Rule Changes” (Jan. 13, 2025).
^[21] FOXBusiness, “New FTC chair Andrew Ferguson previews Trump admin’s plans for the agency” (Feb. 20, 2025).
^[22] Federal Trade Commission, “Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak Regarding the FTC Staff Report on AI Partnerships & Investments 6(b) Study Matter Number P246201” (Jan. 17, 2025).
^[23] US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, “Hearings” (Feb. 12, 2025). 
^[24] Reuters, “Chair of UK competition regulator steps down” (Jan. 21, 2025).
^[25] European Commission, “The future of European competitiveness: Report by Mario Draghi” (Sept. 9, 2024).

This informational piece, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided on the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin or its lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.