The Federal Trade Commission said it and five states have notified the court that they intend to file a stipulated order to resolve antitrust litigation against Zillow and Redfin, marking a potentially important development in platform-market enforcement.

The Justice Department has announced a proposed resolution with KKR that would impose a record $250 million civil penalty over alleged repeated violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act’s premerger notification rules. According to the DOJ’s announcement, KKR Co. GP LLC allegedly failed across at least 16 transactions to provide complete and accurate filings, including by withholding, altering, or omitting required documents that are central to antitrust review.

The case is notable not just for the size of the penalty, but for the government’s theory: this was not framed as a one-off filing error, but as a pattern of conduct that allegedly undermined the HSR regime itself.

A federal judge in Virginia has handed Google a partial win in one of the Justice Department’s most closely watched monopolization cases, declining to order the sale of key pieces of the company’s ad-tech stack while still requiring operational changes aimed at curbing anticompetitive conduct.

KKR’s agreement to pay a reported $250 million to resolve U.S. Department of Justice allegations over repeated violations of federal premerger filing rules is a striking escalation in Hart-Scott-Rodino enforcement. For dealmakers and their counsel, the settlement is more than a large penalty: it is a clear warning that the government is prepared to pursue aggressive remedies when it believes parties have sidestepped antitrust review.

The dispute centers on the HSR Act, which requires parties to certain acquisitions and mergers to notify federal antitrust regulators and observe a waiting period before closing.

The Federal Trade Commission has said it will file a stipulated order to resolve its litigation against Zillow and Redfin, signaling that a closely watched enforcement matter involving two of the best-known online real-estate platforms is nearing a negotiated finish rather than continuing through active court litigation.

Although the FTC’s announcement does not spell out the full terms, the move is notable on its own.

A California federal judge has approved the Justice Department’s settlement allowing Hewlett Packard Enterprise’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks to move forward, rejecting objections from a coalition of state attorneys general and closing a closely watched chapter in federal merger enforcement.

The case, United States of America v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. et al, drew unusual attention because the dispute was not just over the substance of the antitrust remedy, but also over whether the court should probe claims that outside lobbying may have influenced the DOJ’s settlement decision.

Two recent federal criminal actions show the Justice Department continuing to press aggressively in both competition and health care enforcement. In Oklahoma City, a federal jury convicted Sioux Erosion Control Inc., along with one executive and one employee, for participating in a roughly $100 million bid-rigging and price-fixing conspiracy tied to public transportation contracts. In a separate matter, prosecutors unsealed a racketeering indictment accusing four alleged members of the “War Room” of orchestrating a $12 million Medicaid fraud scheme.

Taken together, the matters are a reminder that DOJ is treating criminal antitrust and health care fraud as parallel priority areas, with consequences that extend well beyond the charged defendants.

The Federal Trade Commission has weighed in behind a proposal before the Ohio Supreme Court that would reduce the American Bar Association’s central role in determining which law schools qualify graduates for bar admission. While the change is specific to Ohio’s attorney-licensing framework, the implications are much broader: it touches the long-running debate over whether a single private organization should wield outsized influence over entry into the legal profession.

For decades, ABA accreditation has functioned as the default gatekeeper for many state bar systems.

The FTC has secured what it says is the largest civil penalty ever obtained for a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing failure: a combined $12 million settlement with Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech over the acquisition of JC Medical. According to the agency, the companies structured the transaction to avoid premerger notification and waiting-period requirements under the HSR Act, prompting an enforcement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf.

That headline number matters.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced what it calls a major antitrust settlement with Caremark, resolving a closely watched case against one of the country’s largest pharmacy benefit managers. Even without the full settlement details in hand, the development is important: it signals that the FTC is continuing to press competition theories aimed at the role PBMs play in drug pricing, formulary design, and pharmacy reimbursement.

For antitrust and healthcare lawyers, the significance goes well beyond a single company.

The Federal Trade Commission has inserted itself into a debate with potentially long-term consequences for the legal profession: who gets to decide whether a lawyer’s education is good enough for bar admission. In a recent endorsement of an Ohio Supreme Court proposal, the FTC supported reducing the American Bar Association’s outsized role in determining whether a law school credential qualifies an applicant to sit for the bar.

That is more than an academic governance issue.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division has announced that it is resuming a more targeted Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process, an important procedural shift for companies navigating premerger notification in 2026. Although this is not a court filing or enforcement complaint, it is still a meaningful legal development: it tells dealmakers and their counsel how one of the government’s primary antitrust enforcers intends to allocate resources and frame early-stage merger scrutiny.

At a practical level, a “targeted” review approach suggests the Division is moving away from a broader, more expansive initial review posture and returning to a process more closely tailored to transactions that present identifiable competitive risks.

The Justice Department’s proposed settlement with Willow Bridge Property Company LLC marks another important step in the government’s expanding antitrust challenge to rent-setting tools and shared market data in multifamily housing. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, fits into a broader enforcement push targeting allegations that landlords used common pricing software and competitively sensitive information to coordinate rents.

While the specific terms of the proposed resolution will matter, the headline takeaway is already clear: DOJ is not treating rental algorithms as a niche issue.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has resumed a targeted Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, an important signal that federal merger scrutiny remains active and potentially more exacting for certain transactions. While this development is not tied to a single headline-grabbing court fight, it matters because the HSR process is the front door to U.S. merger enforcement: changes in how the government screens deals can directly affect closing timelines, regulatory strategy, and overall transaction risk.

The announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division suggests that parties should expect renewed attention to selected reportable deals during the premerger review stage.

The Justice Department has proposed an antitrust settlement with Willow Bridge Property Company LLC, one of the country’s largest landlords, in a case that underscores a continuing enforcement priority: the use of pricing algorithms and shared competitively sensitive information in rental housing markets.

According to the government, the case centers on allegations that Willow Bridge participated in information sharing and coordination practices affecting apartment rents.