In President Trump’s second term, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division has demonstrated its antitrust enforcement priorities through relatively frequent filing of Statements of Interest. The 13 Statements filed in 2025 represent a clear uptick from the 7, 8, and 9 Statements filed under the Biden Administration in each of 2022, 2023, and 2024, respectively, marking the highest annual total since President Trump’s first term, when the Antitrust Division filed a whopping 18 statements in 2019 alone.[1] The Division has already filed three Statements in the first quarter of 2026, suggesting the trend is likely to continue. Companies should take note: the DOJ is increasingly speaking up regarding the application of antitrust law to an array of business practices at issue in private lawsuits.

The positions the Division has taken in its recent Statements also shed light on its substantive vision and goals for antitrust enforcement. In this advisory, we look closely at the three most recent Statements, all filed on February 27, 2026.

Algorithmic Information Sharing

As this Blog has previously noted, the use of algorithmic software presents significant risks of legal liability when it entails the exchange of sensitive pricing or output data. In recent years, the DOJ has repeatedly emphasized that courts should look closely at whether such information-sharing arrangements harm competition, even if the data is aggregated and anonymized.[2] In In re Frozen Potato Products Antitrust Litigation, the Division intervened to underscore once again that courts should not assume these information-sharing arrangements are harmless, and should instead carefully examine whether the practice actually hurts consumers by facilitating concerted decision-making.[3] Companies using third-party data aggregators or benchmarking services should take note that the DOJ is skeptical that such arrangements are benign insofar as they facilitate the sharing of sensitive data between competitors, and may intervene to encourage courts to scrutinize them more closely.

Focus on the Bottom Line for Per Se Violations

Some business practices are considered so harmful to competition that they are deemed per se illegal, such as agreements among competitors to fix prices, divide up markets, or not hire each other’s workers. In Herzog v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc., the Division argued that companies cannot escape per se liability for such violations just because their relationship involves a vertical relationship—meaning that at least some of the companies are at different levels in a supply chain instead of direct competitors.[4] In that case, the defendants were a group of contractors and subcontractors providing disaster recovery services. The plaintiff, a site inspector who worked for one of the subcontractors, alleged that he was prevented from moving to another subcontractor due to an anti-poaching agreement among the prime contractor and all of the subcontractors, and further alleged that the defendants agreed to fix their workers’ wage ranges. The defendants argued that because they had vertical contracting relationships with the prime contractor, the agreements were not per se illegal. The DOJ pushed back on that argument, warning that accepting it would essentially nullify the per se rule by allowing competitors to escape liability by entering into anticompetitive agreements that have vertical aspects. Instead, the Division encouraged the court to look past the labels and judge whether the alleged conspiracy restrains the defendants’ competition over employees and their wages.

Robust Remedies for Patent Holders

In a joint filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Division weighed in on Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, a case where Collision, a patent holder that licenses its patented technology rather than manufacturing products itself, won a $445.5 million verdict for infringement against Samsung.[5] Collision asked the court to order Samsung to stop infringing its patent, but Samsung contended that no injunction was necessary because monetary relief would fully compensate Collision for any future lost royalties. The Division argued that patent owners like Collision should be able to obtain injunctive relief against the ongoing theft of their inventions because damages from the loss of control over a necessarily novel, useful, and nonobvious technology are hard to approximate, and the continuing infringement itself constitutes a form of irreparable harm.

Conclusion

The Antitrust Division’s increasing reliance on Statements of Interest reflects the DOJ’s commitment to seeking to influence how courts apply antitrust law, even in cases where the Division is not a party to the case. For companies watching from the sidelines, this means that lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs—not just government enforcement actions—can become a testing ground for the contours of antitrust law. Parties to private litigation should consider whether the issues in their case may attract interest from regulators.

Wiggin and Dana routinely advises clients in connection with the full range of antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair trade practices matters, including antitrust litigation, compliance counseling, merger investigations, and representations before the FTC, DOJ, and offices of state attorneys general. Wiggin and Dana also regularly advises clients concerning evolving antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair trade practices, and regulatory landscapes.

[1] See https://www.justice.gov/atr/statements-interest.

[2] See, e.g.,Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. RealPage, Inc., 1:24-cv-00710 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1419406/dl; Statement of Interest of the United States of America, In re: Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litig., 0:24-md-03110-JWB-DTS (D. Minn. June 24, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1404496/dl; Statement of Interest of the United States in In re Pork Antitrust Litig., 0:18-cv-01776 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1371806/dl; Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Pls.-Appellants, Gibson v. Cendyn Grp., LLC, No. 24-3576 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024), at https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1376121/dl; Statement of Interest of the United States in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, 1:23-cv-02536 (D.N.J. March 28, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-04/420931.pdf.

[3] Statement of Interest of the United States in In re: Frozen Potato Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-11801 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1429466/dl.

[4] Statement of Interest of the United States in Herzog. v. Fluor Fed. Servs., Inc., 0:25-cv-61991 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1429456/dl. 

[5] Statement of Interest of the United States of America, Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,  2:21-cv-00259 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/atr/media/1429386/dl.