Looking Ahead on US Antitrust Enforcement and Tech: Will 2026 Deliver More of the Same?

Max Morgan is a Tech and Public Policy Scholar at Georgetown University.

Following significant court rulings against Google and heightened attention to companies’ use of algorithmic pricing, 2025 promised to be a consequential year for US antitrust enforcement. In practice, though, courts followed a more familiar path, maintaining a preference for behavioral remedies over structural changes, as evidenced by the Google search decision. And though states increased efforts to pass laws to regulate algorithmic pricing, federal agencies stepped back

As 2026 begins, several questions remain: Will pending cases challenging big tech’s monopolies result in market restructuring, or will courts continue to impose limited behavioral constraints? Will enforcement activity related to algorithmic pricing lead to meaningful changes or dead ends?

Monopolization cases

2025 highlights

• Google Search: Judge Amit P. Mehta imposed behavioral remedies in September, banning exclusive distribution contracts and requiring limited search data sharing, among other stipulations. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to force divestiture of Chrome and other structural remedies was rejected, with the court citing potential competition from generative AI companies like OpenAI.
• Google Adtech: Judge Leonie M. Brinkema found Google monopolized publisher ad servers and ad exchanges in April. The remedies trial concluded in November 2025, with a decision pending in early 2026.
• Meta: Judge James E. Boasberg rejected the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) monopolization case in November, concluding that Meta lacks monopoly power when TikTok and YouTube are included in the social networking market.
• Apple (DOJ): The DOJ sued Apple in March 2024 for monopolizing smartphone markets. Apple's motion to dismiss was denied in June 2025, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
• Apple (Epic): The Ninth Circuit affirmed in December that Apple committed civil contempt by willfully violating court orders, imposing a 27% commission on external purchases and restricting alternative payment options despite previous injunctions.
• California reform: California's Law Revision Commission released its Tentative Recommendation on single-firm conduct, proposing an expansion of state antitrust law beyond federal standards. The comment period closes in early 2026.

Looking forward

• Google Search: A technical committee will oversee the implementation of the mandated behavioral remedies throughout 2026.
• Google Adtech: The remedies decision in early 2026 will test whether courts will order structural separation despite their reluctance in the search case. The DOJ has requested divestiture of Google's AdX exchange; a ruling requiring breakup would mark the first forced divestiture of a major tech platform.
• Meta. The FTC appealed the decision to dismiss the case in January.
• Amazon: The FTC v. Amazon trial is scheduled for late 2026, targeting Amazon's alleged monopoly in online superstores and marketplace services.
• California reform: If adopted in 2026, California's antitrust reform would create divergent legal standards between California and federal law, potentially emboldening other states to pursue similar reforms.

Cartels and price-fixing

2025 highlights

Algorithmic pricing drew increased enforcement and legislative attention in 2025, establishing legal standards for how data-driven pricing tools can facilitate anticompetitive coordination.

In November, the DOJ reached a settlement with RealPage requiring the company to stop sharing competitively sensitive rental pricing information among landlords. The settlement followed ProPublica's 2022 investigation, revealing that RealPage's software enabled cartel-like behavior in rental markets. RealPage agreed to end practices that allowed landlords to coordinate pricing decisions through shared data and algorithmic recommendations.

Earlier in 2025, the FTC released preliminary findings from its surveillance pricing 6(b) study in January 2025, revealing that firms frequently use personal data like precise location and browser history to set individualized consumer prices. Current FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson signaled opposition to the decision in a dissenting statement, and the agency has not pursued the matter further under the Trump Administration.

State lawmakers have filled the gap. New York's S.7882 banned algorithmic rent coordination, prohibiting entities from operating software or data analytics services that facilitate agreements among rental property owners to suppress competition. The law was set to take effect on December 15, 2025. RealPage filed suit against the state of New York, challenging the statute, including on First Amendment grounds, seeking to enjoin enforcement.

Looking forward

Resolution of RealPage's constitutional challenge to New York's algorithmic pricing ban will determine whether states can regulate pricing algorithms as anticompetitive coordination tools. A favorable ruling for New York would validate state-level regulation of algorithmic pricing and likely accelerate similar legislation nationwide.

Additional states are considering similar algorithmic pricing laws in 2026. As of July 2025, “state legislators introduced 51 bills across 24 states,” according to Consumer Reports; however, each state's proposed statutes differ in their definition of algorithmic pricing, sectoral scope, and permitted use cases, among other key differences. With the FTC's lack of action on surveillance pricing, state attorneys general may launch their own investigations into data-driven pricing practices in sectors like retail, travel, and food. The combined effect of litigation outcomes, federal settlements, and state statutes will shape the practical boundaries for permissible use of pricing software in 2026 and beyond.

Open questions for this year

Will federal antitrust enforcement depart from previous administrations in 2026? Early signs suggest surprising continuity, albeit with less tenacity for new interventions. The Trump administration has so far defended monopolization cases filed under prior administrations, including Trump’s first term. However, potential shifts are increasingly visible, especially at the FTC. The agency has sought to reduce staff, and turnover – combined with President Trump’s removal of the two sitting Democratic Commissioners – has left the agency with just two commissioners as of the start of the year.

Will courts impose structural remedies in 2026? The remedies in the Google Search case illustrated judicial reluctance to impose divestiture in supposedly fast-evolving markets amid the development of AI. If Amazon were to lose its case against the FTC, for example, would a judge resist a requested divestiture of Amazon Marketplace given AI chatbots entering the online commerce industry? If courts consistently reject structural separation, antitrust enforcement may achieve legal victories without meaningful market restructuring.

Will states take the lead on antitrust enforcement in 2026? With federal intervention potentially slowing and courts favoring behavioral remedies, state-level action on algorithmic pricing and antitrust reform may become increasingly important levers of change. Regardless of the outcome, the fragmentation of tech antitrust enforcement across federal and state jurisdictions appears to be accelerating, creating a complex regulatory landscape for 2026 and beyond.