skip to main content

The Paul, Weiss Antitrust Practice advises clients on a full range of global antitrust matters, including antitrust regulatory clearance, government investigations, private litigation, and counseling and compliance. The firm represents clients before antitrust and competition authorities in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions around the world.

Representative Engagements


  • Amazon in several matters, including:
    • securing the dismissal of a major antitrust lawsuit filed by the D.C. Attorney General challenging Amazon’s pricing policies nationwide. Paul, Weiss won a further victory when the D.C. Superior Court denied the District’s motion for reconsideration and denied the District’s motion to further amend its complaint;
    • a putative class action brought on behalf of consumers alleging that Amazon’s “fair pricing” policy, which requires third-party sellers not to use pricing practices that harm customer trust, has raised the prices of products sold by those third-party sellers, violating antitrust law; and
    • a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust Commercial and Administrative Law. The hearing addressed potential antitrust concerns related to online platforms and market power.
  • The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), the oldest and largest U.S. music performing rights organization, before the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and in leading efforts with respect to amendment of ASCAP’s 80-year-old consent decrees.
  • Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), a global medical technology company, in numerous matters over the past decade, including most recently in securing a major appellate victory at the Seventh Circuit affirming the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust class action against BD. Paul, Weiss previously secured dismissal of the class action which was brought by a putative class of all U.S. hospitals and healthcare providers alleged that BD conspired with distributors of its products to inflate the prices of syringes and IV catheters by excluding competitors from the market.
  • C.R. Bard, a medical technology manufacturer, as co-counsel in winning a complete defense verdict in a $450 million lawsuit brought by competitor AngioDynamics, alleging that Bard illegally ties the sales of its Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs) and its Tip Location System (TLS).
  • BNSF Railway, an operator of freight railroad networks in North America, in more than 100 antitrust cases consolidated in two multidistrict litigations in the U.S. District Court for the District Columbia alleging that BNSF and other railway companies conspired to implement fuel surcharges.
  • Bumble Bee Foods in defense of litigation brought by putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and commercial food preparers, as well as in related individual actions by large merchants, alleging a price fixing conspiracy in the U.S. packaged tuna industry.
  • Citigroup Inc. in securing the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a consolidated multidistrict litigation alleging that Citigroup and various other banks conspired in a group boycott to reduce competition in interest-rate swap trading, effectively raising prices for purchasers of the swaps.
  • Deutsche Bank in multi-regulator, multi-jurisdictional inquiries concerning the setting of numerous Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) — the largest investigations ever faced by the bank — and in 50-plus individual and class actions concerning IBOR rates in multiple currencies. Paul, Weiss negotiated and coordinated resolutions of the investigations with U.S. and UK authorities, secured the dismissal of numerous private claims and negotiated resolutions in four major class actions.
  • Google as lead trial counsel in United States Google, the blockbuster case seeking to break up Google’s digital advertising business.
  • Mastercard in numerous government and private antitrust actions over the past decade, including most recently in:
    • defending the company for twenty years in class and individual actions brought by merchants attacking Mastercard’s business model and practices, including “interchange” fees and certain rules governing merchants’ acceptance of payment cards. The core Mastercard business model and practices have remained intact following settlements with the merchant class and a large number of plaintiff opt-outs;
    • class actions brought on behalf of independent ATM operators and consumer groups challenging Mastercard’s ATM access fee non-discrimination rule; and
    • an antitrust class action brought on behalf of U.S. merchants alleging that major payments networks, together with card-issuing banks, conspired to shift fraud costs for certain card transactions from card-issuing banks onto merchants in connection with the roll-out of EMV-chip cards in the U.S.
  • Morgan Stanley & Company in defense of a putative class action brought on behalf of any individual that bought or sold a U.S. Treasury security for several years, alleging that 26 of the largest financial institutions rigged auctions to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities. Paul, Weiss was selected by all 26 defendants, each separately represented by a major law firm, to serve on the defense steering committee.
  • National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) in the dismissal of a countersuit brought by Peleton Interactive alleging antitrust violations and in the settlement of a high-profile copyright infringement action against Peloton The suits arose out of Peloton’s alleged use of the publishers’ musical works in workout videos in violation of the copyright laws.
  • News Corporation and News America Marketing (NAM) in several antitrust matters, including most recently in:
    • the defense of a $700 million monopolization claim brought by competitor Valassis Communications, which Paul, Weiss successfully tried to a jury in a three-week trial in 2021 in the Southern District of New York;
    • securing the dismissal of an antitrust claim by Valassis alleging that NAM violated a consent order resolving an earlier dispute; and
    • the favorable settlement of a significant class action brought by customers of NAM’s in-store marketing products, including consumer products companies Dial, Heinz and Smithfield Foods, claiming that NAM illegally monopolized an alleged market for in-store promotional services by engaging in a variety of alleged exclusionary practices.
  • Nomura Securities International, Inc. and Nomura Holdings, Inc. in several matters, including:
    • in securing the dismissal, along with other joint defense firms, of a class action alleging that Nomura and other major global financial institutions conspired to manipulate prices in the multitrillion-dollar global market for supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds; and
    • in a putative antitrust class action alleging that the defendant banks participated in an anticompetitive conspiracy to purchase European government bonds in the primary market and sell them at fixed prices in a secondary market.
  • SAP, a German multinational enterprise software company, in defense of an action brought by business analytics provider Teradata relating to SAP’s HANA product alleging violations of the Sherman Act as well as misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement.
  • Uber Technologies in several significant matters, including:
    • an arbitration trial victory in an antitrust action brought on behalf of users of Uber’s ride-hailing app by a customer who challenged the legality of Uber’s business model under the Sherman Act and sought to enjoin surge pricing nationwide. Plaintiff filed a challenge to the arbitration ruling in federal district court and following oral argument, the court upheld the ruling; and
    • securing the dismissal of a $750 million unfair competition lawsuit brought by the largest taxi conglomerate in Boston in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court previously held that Uber did not compete unfairly in the Boston market when it operated without a license in violation of longstanding taxi rules. The dismissal was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which held that Uber was not liable for violating the Massachusetts unfair competition statute or the common law for unfair competition.
  • The Ultimate Fighting Championship in a favorable settlement resolving all claims in two sprawling antitrust class actions alleging that UFC illegally dominated a market for elite MMA fighter services and suppressed fighter pay below competitive levels.


  • ADT Inc. as corporate and antitrust counsel in a $450 million investment from Google in connection with the companies’ establishment of a long-term commercial partnership to create the next generation of smart home security offerings.
  • Anheuser-Busch InBev in connection with antitrust aspects of its proposed acquisition of Craft Brew Alliance, a publicly traded U.S.-based beer brewing company.
  • Apollo Global Management, funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, Inc. and its portfolio companies as antitrust counsel in several transactions, including:
    • in their $7.5 billion acquisition of the incumbent local exchange carrier business of Lumen Technologies, a Louisiana-based telecommunications company;
    • Tech Data, a Florida-based distributor of IT products and services, in its approximately $7.2 billion combination with SYNNEX Corporation, a California-based provider of a comprehensive range of distribution, systems design and integration services for the technology industry;
    • Athene in its acquisitions of Wheels, Inc., and LeasePlan USA, two automotive fleet leasing and management companies; and
    • in their $7.1 billion acquisition of Tenneco Inc, one of the world’s leading designers, manufacturers and marketers of automotive products for original equipment and aftermarket customers.
  • Atrium Health in its multi-billion dollar merger with Advocate Health. The transaction created the fifth-largest nonprofit health system in the nation.
  • Continental Grain Company (CGC) as antitrust counsel in connection with the joint acquisition of chicken producer Sanderson Farms by CGC and Cargill. Post-transaction, CGC subsidiary chicken producer Wayne Farms was combined with Sanderson Farms and is jointly operated by CGC and Cargill.
  • CDK Global, Inc., a supplier of dealer management software used by care dealerships, in its acquisition of ELEAD1ONE, a leading provider of fully integrated CRM software solutions to automotive dealers.
  • Farelogix, a technology company that connects travel agencies with airlines, as lead antitrust counsel in connection with the DOJ’s investigation and subsequent lawsuit seeking to block its proposed acquisition by Sabre, a leading global distribution system (GDS), alleging that the merger would eliminate competition for booking services in the online and traditional travel agency markets. Following a two-week bench trial in federal court, the court issued an opinion in favor of Farelogix, ruling that the DOJ did not establish harm to competition on both sides of the two-sided market at issue.
  • The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company:
    • as antitrust counsel before the FTC in connection with its joint venture with Bridgestone Corporation to combine their U.S. wholesale tire distribution businesses to create TireHub; and
    • in connection with its $2.8 billion acquisition of Cooper Tire & Rubber Company.
  • KPS Capital Partners and its portfolio companies as antitrust counsel in a variety of transactions, including:
    • its sale of the attachment business segment of International Equipment Solutions to Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., which included coordinated merger filings in the U.S. and Brazil; and
    • counsel in the sale of Crenlo Cab Products, LLC, a Minnesota-based independent manufacturer of operator cabs, locomotive sub-assemblies, electronic enclosures and other complex fabrications in North and South America, to Angeles Equity Partners, LLC.
  • Mastercard:
    • in the DOJ Antitrust Division’s review of Mastercard’s nearly $1 billion acquisition of Finicity, Inc., a fintech company that aggregates data from consumers’ bank accounts; and
    • as antitrust advisor in its $850 million acquisition of Ekata, a provider of identity verification services for e-commerce transactions.
  • MGM Holdings as co-counsel in the antitrust aspects of its $8.45 billion sale to Amazon.
  • Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation in connection with its acquisition of U.S. chemical manufacturer, including CFIUS proceedings and obtaining and/or coordinating antitrust approvals in North America and Europe.
  • The Nielsen Company, a leading U.S. provider of television audience measurement services, as lead antitrust counsel in connection with the FTC’s second request investigation of its $1.3 billion acquisition of Arbitron, a U.S. leader in radio audience measurement services.
  • Oak Hill Capital as corporate and antitrust counsel in connection with its investment, alongside Riverside Partners, in Calero Software, a technology expense management software provider, to finance Calero’s merger with MDSL, an expense management platform.
  • Resolute Forest Products Inc., a global forest products company, in its $2.7 billion acquisition by The Paper Excellence Group through the Group’s wholly owned subsidiary, Domtar Corporation.
  • Roark Capital Group in connection with its acquisition of Subway Restaurants, one of the world’s largest quick service restaurant brands.
  • Shopify Inc., a provider of internet infrastructure for commerce, in its $2.1 billion acquisition of Deliverr, Inc., a California-based fulfillment technology provider.
  • Spirit Airlines in a 17-day bench trial in the District of Massachusetts against the DOJ and several states that had brought an action challenging the proposed sale of Spirit to JetBlue. This was the first challenge to an airline merger that was litigated to conclusion in district court. Although the district court entered an order enjoining the merger, the decision is noteworthy as Spirit and JetBlue succeeded in rebutting the government’s prima facie case and persuaded the court that the transaction would result in substantial benefits to American consumers.  
  • Uber Technologies:
    • in the DOJ Antitrust Division’s review of its $2.65 billion acquisition of Postmates; and
    • in the FTC’s review of Uber’s acquisition of Drizly, an online alcohol marketplace.


  • An international placement agency in a criminal antitrust investigation.
  • A major international manufacturer regarding a criminal antitrust investigation relating to a potential no-poach/non-solicit agreement.
  • A major security industry company in a criminal antitrust investigation.
  • A major U.S.-based insurance company in connection with a criminal antitrust investigation by an inspector general into potential bid rigging and price fixing in the market for certain insurance services products.
  • A manufacturer of compact construction, agricultural and maintenance equipment in a criminal antitrust and civil False Claims Act (FCA) investigation by the DOJ and the General Services Administration’s Office of Inspector General.
  • A multinational insurance company in an internal investigation regarding potential criminal antitrust activity in its U.S. insurance operations. This internal investigation stemmed from an investigation by a European regulatory agency into suspected anticompetitive conduct by insurance brokers in the European market.
  • A multinational chemicals company in connection with an investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division into allegations of collusion in the fragrance industry. Paul, Weiss also represents the company in parallel class action litigation seeking treble damages and other relief.
  • Nippon Chemi-Con (NCC), a Japan-based electronic components manufacturer in a DOJ Grand Jury investigation and a European Commission investigation regarding alleged price fixing in the market for aluminum electrolytic, tantalum electrolytic, and film capacitors. Paul, Weiss also represented NCC and its U.S.-based subsidiary, United Chemi-Con, in defense of class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers, as well as in several opt-out suits, .
  • A U.S. holding company and its subsidiary in a criminal antitrust investigation and private litigation concerning the cement and ready mix concrete markets in the southeast United States.

© 2024 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Privacy Policy