The Federal Trade Commission, joined by a coalition of states, has launched a significant enforcement action aimed at alleged collusion among major advertising agencies in the digital advertising market. The April 15 announcement is notable not just for the parties involved, but for where regulators are focusing next: beyond dominant technology platforms and into the intermediary ad ecosystem that influences pricing, placement, and competition across online media.

That matters because advertising agencies sit at a critical junction between brands, publishers, platforms, and consumers.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, alongside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has filed a civil antitrust suit against New York-Presbyterian, alleging the hospital system used contractual restrictions that limited access to lower-cost healthcare options. The case, United States Of America v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, is an important marker of where federal healthcare enforcement appears to be headed: closer scrutiny of contract terms that may steer patients away from cheaper alternatives and preserve market power for dominant providers.

According to the government, the challenged restrictions allegedly prevented health plans from offering or promoting more affordable options that would exclude or limit New York-Presbyterian’s participation.

One of the most closely watched healthcare merger disputes is still the Justice Department’s challenge to UnitedHealth Group’s proposed acquisition of Amedisys — and, just as importantly, the government’s willingness to resolve that challenge through a divestiture package rather than insisting on an all-or-nothing court fight.

The proposed settlement, reached with the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general from Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, would require substantial asset sales to address competitive concerns tied to home health and hospice markets.

A federal judge in California has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the proposed $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and TEGNA, handing enforcers and private challengers a significant early win in one of the most closely watched media antitrust fights in recent years.

The court found that the plaintiffs — including multiple state attorneys general and DirecTV — were likely to succeed on claims that the transaction would lessen competition, giving the combined company greater leverage over distributors and potentially leading to higher prices or worse terms that could ultimately affect consumers.

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, joined by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has filed a civil antitrust case against The New York and Presbyterian Hospital, alleging the hospital used contractual restrictions that limited insurers’ ability to steer patients to lower-cost providers.

The case, United States Of America v. New York Presbyterian Hospital, is one to watch for healthcare providers, payors, and counsel advising on managed care contracting.

A federal judge in Connecticut has declined to pause the multistate antitrust litigation accusing generic-drug manufacturers of price-fixing, even as settlement discussions continue. The decision keeps one of the most closely watched coordinated state enforcement actions on an active track, preserving litigation pressure while negotiations unfold in parallel.

The case is part of the long-running generic-drug pricing litigation brought by a coalition of state attorneys general against multiple manufacturers.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, joined by the Ohio Attorney General, has filed a civil antitrust suit against OhioHealth, alleging the health system used contracting practices that unlawfully restricted competition and increased healthcare costs. The case, United States of America et al v. OhioHealth Corporation, puts a spotlight on how enforcers are continuing to scrutinize not just mergers, but also the day-to-day terms health systems negotiate with commercial payers.

That distinction matters.

The antitrust challenge to Live Nation and Ticketmaster remains one of the most closely watched business cases in the country, even as reports indicate the U.S. Department of Justice reached a tentative settlement with the company in March 2026. The reason is straightforward: a broad coalition of states is still pressing forward, ensuring that the litigation continues to shape how courts, regulators, and the live-entertainment industry think about market power, vertical integration, and consumer harm.

The case, pending in the Southern District of New York as United States of America et al v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al, targets practices that have long drawn criticism from artists, venues, fans, and policymakers: ticketing fees, exclusive venue arrangements, and the combined influence that comes from operating both ticketing platforms and concert promotion businesses.

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division has announced a federal grand jury indictment charging Jon Christopher Burt, Gerald Steven Lavender, and Jack Nelson Purvis Jr. in an alleged bid-rigging conspiracy involving sports equipment contracts for Mississippi public schools. The case is another reminder that criminal antitrust enforcement remains a live risk in public-procurement markets, including transactions that may appear routine or localized.

According to the DOJ’s announcement, the indictment centers on alleged collusion in the sale of sports equipment to school districts.

The Federal Trade Commission and the DOJ’s Antitrust Division have launched a joint public inquiry into the effectiveness of the Premerger Notification and Report Form, a notable step that signals possible changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger filing process. Although this is not a challenge to any one transaction, it is the kind of regulatory move that can reshape day-to-day antitrust practice long before the next headline merger fight reaches court.

At a high level, the agencies are asking whether the current form gives them the information they need to evaluate deals efficiently and accurately.