Baker Botts was pleased to sponsor the 20th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium on September 15, 2026, where antitrust and competition law enforcement officials from the U.S. and global jurisdictions, along with leading practitioners and industry professionals, examined the increasingly complex global antitrust landscape. Across the discussions, speakers returned to several common themes: enforcement is becoming more multifaceted and globally interconnected; merger review increasingly requires early, evidence-based planning; and competition authorities are balancing traditional antitrust principles with broader concerns such as innovation, digital markets, economic resilience and national security.

Speakers also emphasized that predictability, transparency and procedural fairness remain critical as enforcement priorities evolve across jurisdictions. Many speakers also acknowledged, however, an increasing likelihood of enforcement disparities across international jurisdictions. For companies and dealmakers, the practical message was clear: antitrust risk now demands coordinated global strategy, consistent advocacy, rigorous economic support and careful attention to both federal and state enforcement trends.

Below are key takeaways, and we are happy to provide further insights on these important developments.

Key Takeaways

A Conversation with Andrew N. Ferguson

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson sat down with Baker Botts Partner Paul Cuomo to discuss merger enforcement, Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) reform, AI, consumer protection and international collaboration. Chairman Ferguson outlined an FTC focused on federal litigation, targeted information-driven merger review, enforcement of existing laws in AI markets and expanded consumer-protection efforts. He also previewed a continued focus on significant conduct cases, with several potential headlines soon.

• Federal court litigation remains central: Companies facing FTC merger challenges should expect federal litigation to remain a key enforcement strategy. Recent Supreme Court and appellate decisions have limited agency administrative adjudication, while federal courts provide a more neutral forum.
• HSR reform remains a priority: Although the FTC has returned to the original HSR filing form, the agency is still searching for the right balance between burdens on businesses and the benefits of requiring additional information.
• Existing laws apply to AI: The FTC will continue to apply existing antitrust and consumer protection laws to AI. Skepticism toward broad AI regulation is paired with antitrust exemptions, which could limit competition and create barriers to entry. While concerns about AI’s potential risks continue to shape policy debate, the FTC’s approach will remain grounded in existing laws.
• Consumer protection is a growing priority: Roughly half of the FTC’s work focuses on consumer protection. Antitrust lawyers are encouraged to build expertise.
• International cooperation will depend on procedural fairness: The FTC values cooperation with foreign competition authorities but wants greater convergence around due process. Cooperation could be limited if foreign regulators treat U.S. companies differently.

Global Enforcers Roundtable

The Global Enforcers Roundtable focused on evolving enforcement priorities and how competition policy intersects with broader economic and geopolitical concerns.

Panelists included Camila Cabral Pires Alves, Commissioner, Brazil, Administrative Council for Economic Defense; Andrea Marván Saltiel, Chair, Mexico, National Antitrust Commission; Andreas Mundt, President, Germany, Federal Cartel Office; and Arisa Wakabayashi, Commissioner, Japan, Japan Fair Trade Commission.

For companies operating across jurisdictions, understanding jurisdictional differences and anticipating potential areas of divergence is increasingly important.

Key themes included:

• Digital markets remain a major enforcement priority: Regulators are increasing scrutiny of digital markets and introducing new rules to address potentially anticompetitive behavior. It will be very important to stay ahead of evolving regulations.
• Cartel enforcement remains active: Some countries are renewing focus on cartel cases, supported by increasingly sophisticated digital investigative tools.
• Merger reviews are evolving: Merger guidelines are adjusting to recent developments in competition law, while regulators are also grappling with how factors such as national security, economic resilience and digital markets should influence merger analysis.
• Competition policy must remain evidence-based: While regulators acknowledged that competition authorities cannot operate in isolation from broader government priorities, they cautioned against allowing national security, supply-chain or other policy objectives to displace core competition principles. Fact-based investigations and merger review to create greater certainty for businesses.
• Economic security and competition are increasingly interconnected: Promoting competition and innovation can contribute to economic resilience and need not conflict with economic-security objectives. Across jurisdictions, regulators are considering how competition policy can support broader economic goals without compromising enforcement standards.
• International coordination is becoming both more important and more challenging: Multijurisdictional transactions and conduct increasingly require cooperation among competition authorities. There is a real risk of divergence as countries prioritize national interests.

Beyond Merger Control: The Future of Global Antitrust Enforcement

The panel, which included DOJ Antitrust Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stephanie Greco and Honeywell Aerospace General Counsel Hugh Hollman, examined the evolving global antitrust landscape. Speakers emphasized the importance of predictable and transparent enforcement while recognizing that different jurisdictions may reach different outcomes based on market-specific factors.

For dealmakers, the message was clear: global transactions require early, coordinated risk assessment, consistent cross-jurisdictional communication, and careful attention to potential remedies and geopolitical considerations.

• Predictability amid divergence: Different outcomes across jurisdictions do not necessarily reflect fragmented enforcement, but increasing differences in how agencies approach consumer welfare, digital regulation and policy can make outcomes less predictable.
• Antitrust meets industrial policy: Economic nationalism and national security considerations are playing a growing role in competition enforcement and policy, particularly in Europe and cross-border transactions.
• Map risks early: Companies should assess potential enforcement, geopolitical events, timing and remedy risks across jurisdictions at the outset of a deal and align their approach with management and board expectations.
• Consistency is key: Consistent messaging and communication across jurisdictions can help avoid red flags and reinforce credibility with enforcement agencies.
• Build the roadmap early: Early involvement of economists and coordination between in-house and outside advisers can help identify theories of harm, determine the necessary data and develop a consistent narrative for regulators and decision-makers.

A Conversation with Emanuele Tarantino

Emanuele Tarantino, Chief Competition Economist at the European Commission, emphasized the importance of clear, predictable and economically grounded merger analysis as the European Commission develops its new guidelines, expected in Q4. Companies and counsel should be prepared to substantiate claimed efficiencies with rigorous economic evidence and expect greater scrutiny of the assumptions behind quantitative analyses.

• Scale alone does not equal efficiency: Evidence should support efficiencies by showing that a merger combines complementary assets or enables companies to achieve more with the same resources—not simply by increasing market power or prices.
• European competitiveness alone is not a basis for clearing a merger: Competition analysis must remain focused on consumer benefits and competitive effects.
• Numbers are only as useful as the assumptions behind them: Use caution and do not treat quantitative analysis as inherently reliable without examining the underlying methodology and assumptions.
• Predictability matters: Feedback on the draft guidelines has focused on making them clearer and more practical for authorities, courts and practitioners to apply consistently.

Merger Control and Geopolitics: Navigating a More Complex Approval Process

Baker Botts partner David Cardwell moderated a panel with Johnson & Johnson Senior Counsel Mika Ikeda and Charlie Beller, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Mergers in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Discussion highlighted how U.S. merger enforcement has shifted under the current administration and what dealmakers can expect going forward. A meaningful change in the government’s posture toward M&A includes greater recognition of its potential economic benefits and a renewed willingness to resolve competitive concerns through remedies.

• A more receptive M&A environment: U.S. agencies are more open to recognizing the benefits of M&A and to resolving competitive concerns through targeted remedies. For dealmakers, this creates more opportunities to successfully defend transactions and negotiate solutions to regulatory concerns, rather than face an all-or-nothing outcome.
• Economics is back at the table: Economists have regained a more prominent role in merger review in the U.S., with FTC Commissioners, DOJ Front Office, and DOJ/FTC staff more engaged throughout the transaction process and greater attention to the economic analysis underlying deals.
• Guidelines as a framework, not an outcome: The 2023 Merger Guidelines remain an important reference point, but should be viewed as instructive rather than dispositive, with a renewed focus on precedent and underlying law rather than a partisan policy statement.
• Innovation competition continues to evolve: U.S. and EU approaches remain broadly aligned on dynamic theories of competition, while U.S. guidance emphasizes the importance of nascent competitors and innovation. The agencies’ growing focus on broader “innovation spaces,” including R&D, patents, hiring, etc., could create new questions for dealmakers.
• More uncertainty across jurisdictions: Merger clearance requires a more strategic approach, with consideration of all constituencies, increased engagement and transparency, and an understanding of potential enforcement theories.
• State vs. Federal Enforcement: The growing use of concurrent state and federal enforcement raises questions about how far states can go without undermining federal efforts. California’s move to codify longstanding Supreme Court precedents could be significant, but may also create greater uncertainty for businesses.

The Expanding Role of State Attorneys General in Antitrust Enforcement

Beginning with a keynote address from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, this session examined the expanding role of state attorneys general in antitrust enforcement. Weiser emphasized that effective antitrust enforcement increasingly depends on states working together as partners within the federalist system, highlighting the growing resources and bipartisan collaboration among state attorneys general offices.

California Senior Assistant Attorney General Paula Blizzard, Tennessee Deputy Attorney General J. David McDowell and Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Odette discussed how state enforcement is evolving alongside federal oversight, the importance of state-specific perspectives and what the growing role of state AGs means for deal planning and litigation risk.

• States are increasingly central to antitrust enforcement: State AGs are bringing resources, local knowledge and distinct perspectives to enforcement, while continuing to collaborate across states and with federal agencies.
• State enforcement tools are expanding: Venue-selection authority and pre-notification laws are gaining traction, while state AG offices, which care a lot about competition, continue to invest in antitrust resources and staffing.
• Enforcement priorities are evolving: Traditional antitrust priorities remain steady, but states are increasingly grappling with emerging technologies and, in some jurisdictions, issues such as labor-market effects.
• State and federal approaches may diverge: Parties should assess state-specific enforcement risk rather than assume federal inaction will foreclose state action, particularly in consumer-facing industries and transactions where states perceive an enforcement gap.

State investigations warrant serious attention: The panel emphasized that state AG offices are energized and highly capable, and parties should engage thoughtfully with state enforcers, including through coordinated waivers and information-sharing where appropriate.

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.