Adam Di Vincenzo

Subscribe to Adam Di Vincenzo's Posts

In recent weeks, US antitrust enforcers provided more guidance in this space, while also signaling enforcement priorities. Recent developments include active litigation (Agri-Stats), amicus-style interventions (Frozen Potato Products), and calls for comments on potential new guidance on collaborations and information sharing.
Continue Reading The Latest Intelligence: Antitrust Developments Impacting Providers and Users of Algorithmic Tools

As 2026 begins, enforcement actions and private litigation involving algorithmic pricing and information-sharing arrangements remain active. Agencies and courts continue to test how traditional antitrust principles apply to pricing tools and data-driven coordination theories. New state legislation has gone into effect in California and New York, adding a layer of uncertainty for providers and users of revenue management software and related tools.
Continue Reading Algorithmic Collusion: State of Play and What to Watch in 2026

Recent Developments

Recently Filed Complaints

Residential Mortgage Borrowers Allege Residential Mortgage Originators Exchange Sensitive Information and Fix Loan Prices – Mendez v. Optimal Blue, LLC, No. 25-cv-1140 (M.D. Tenn.)

  • On October 6, 2025, purchasers of residential mortgages filed a putative class action against Optimal Blue, LLC, a provider of pricing and business analytics tools for mortgage originators, and 26 financial institutions that use Optimal Blue’s software.
  • Plaintiffs allege that Optimal Blue’s business analytics tools are the mechanism through which loan originators share competitively sensitive data about prospective borrowers and desired loan characteristics. Financial institutions, according to the complaint, use real-time intelligence provided by Optimal Blue’s tools to set mortgage rates. Plaintiffs allege that defendants’ conduct constitutes price-fixing and unlawful information exchange in violation of Sherman Act § 1.
  • Plaintiffs filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, and the case has been assigned to Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who currently oversees the RealPage MDL and landlord defendants alleged to have used RealPage’s software to raise and fix residential rents. See In re RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 3:23-md-3071 (M.D. Tenn.).
  • Although the complaint alleges “Optimal Blue uses information from all participating lenders to generate pricing recommendations,” the complaint does not allege that these recommendations are binding or that the recommendations themselves are widely adopted (or adopted at any given rate) by Optimal Blue users.

Continue Reading The Latest Intelligence: Antitrust Developments Impacting Providers and Users of Algorithmic Tools | September 30 – October 20, 2025

September 15–29, 2025

Guidelines for Assessing and Mitigating Antitrust Risk

Following are some of the key issues we have seen emerge as we monitor these areas of the law and some questions you might consider asking about the software provided or used by your business.Continue Reading The Latest Intelligence: Antitrust Developments Impacting Providers and Users of Algorithmic Tools | September 15 – 29, 2025

On October 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted unanimously to adopt the final rule[1] for the new Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act Form and Instructions, with the concurrence of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”).[2] As anticipated, the new rule entails the most significant revamp of the HSR Form in the nearly 50-year history of the HSR Act, which has significant, long-term implications for all clients planning M&A going forward.
Continue Reading The New HSR Form Is Here

Key Takeaways

  1. The Non-Compete Rule is set to take effect on September 4, 2024. On July 3, a US district court in Texas, however, preliminarily enjoined the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) from implementing or enforcing the Non-Compete Rule against the specific plaintiffs who challenged the Rule in that case. The court held that these challengers are likely to succeed on the merits because the FTC lacks the statutory authority to promulgate the non-compete rule and because the rule’s overbreadth renders it “arbitrary and capricious.”
  2. The court intends to issue a final ruling on the merits on or before August 30, 2024. Given the court’s preliminary ruling, it is likely to rule in plaintiffs’ favor again. The open issue is whether the court will prevent the FTC from enforcing the Rule in any context or will limit the final relief to the specific plaintiffs. Either order will be subject to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (likely an unfavorable forum for the FTC) and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States. Whether and when the rule might take effect thus remains an open question.
  3. Use of non-compete agreements continues to carry risks. The FTC remains free to target non-competes but will have to adjudicate the merits of individual non-competes on a case-by-case basis. State law also remains a source of limitations.
  4. Employers should evaluate existing and future non-competes and ask whether: (1) a non-compete agreement is necessary to protect legitimate business interests; and (2) if so, the agreement is sufficiently narrow in scope, time and geography. Employers also should continue monitoring compliance with the changing landscape of applicable state laws, including laws that prohibit non-compete restrictions on low-wage or non-executive earners.

Continue Reading UPDATE: Slow Down, You Move Too Fast: The FTC Non-Compete Ban May Not Last