Contents
Contents
The answers to most antitrust violations questions start with the conduct: rivals agreeing on prices, bids, customers or workers, or a business using its power to shut out competition. If someone told you which company should win, gave you a rival’s price or asked for a quote designed to lose, you may know how the arrangement worked. The buyer sees competing offers. You may have seen the instruction behind them.
Price fixing, bid rigging and agreements to divide customers or territories are core cartel violations. Agreements between employers to fix wages or stop competing for workers can also take away competition. Other antitrust cases concern exclusionary business practices or mergers that reduce competition.
The Antitrust Division and its postal partners can pay eligible whistleblowers whose voluntary, original information leads to a qualifying criminal recovery. Under the program agreement, rewards can range from 15% to 30% of the money recovered. We assess the conduct, information and reporting route together.
Online auction manipulation can suppress purchase bids and then manufacture demand at resale. Under its deferred prosecution agreement in the criminal case, EBLOCK Corporation admitted facts describing both practices at an acquired used-vehicle auction business.
Legacy employees shared bid limits and gave a competing business access to confidential bidding information. Software placed fake resale bids using real dealerships’ identities without their consent, and the participants shared profits. Access permissions, bidding records and the software’s instructions can connect the apparent demand on the screen to the people creating it.
In the EBLOCK case, the Justice Department announced its first antitrust whistleblower reward, a $1 million payment, on January 29, 2026. The whistleblower’s information led to the resolution of the criminal antitrust and fraud charges.
An antitrust whistleblower complaint gives a specific account of the conduct and the evidence behind it. The rewards program values original, detailed and timely information. We assess how your account connects the agreement to the affected bids, prices or customers.
Original information can come from firsthand business knowledge or independent analysis of public or private data. Your account of a conversation, a pricing instruction or a change in bidding can be the starting point for our assessment. We examine what you know and what supports it with you.
The Justice Department considers the information’s contribution to the case, its reliability and completeness, the government resources it saved and the whistleblower’s cooperation. An insider’s ability to explain a complex transaction or interpret key evidence can matter alongside the documents themselves.
Bid rigging is an agreement to replace independent bidding with a coordinated result. The bidders may decide who will win, who will stay out and which offers will make the chosen winner look competitive. A cartel can use that arrangement to divide contracts among its members.
Cover bidding, also called complementary bidding, supplies an offer intended to lose. Bid suppression keeps an offer out or withdraws it. Bid rotation lets the participants take turns winning.
Market allocation divides customers, products or territories among rivals. The arrangement can also reward a losing bidder with other work or shared profits. What the apparent loser receives can explain why it agreed to lose.
Yes. Agreements among competitors to rig bids are criminal violations under the Sherman Act.
Contech Engineered Solutions supplied aluminum for North Carolina transportation projects and also bid against its distributor, Pomona Pipe Products. The court opinion reproduced in the government’s criminal-case filing describes a sales manager obtaining Pomona’s total bid, then adding a small percentage to produce Contech’s higher offer.
The government’s petition explains why Contech kept submitting bids it intended to lose: the manager believed the buyer needed enough bids to award a contract. Contech could help Pomona win and still supply the aluminum. Losing the tender kept the sale.
Contech pleaded guilty. The manager’s antitrust conviction was later reversed, while his fraud convictions stood.
Red flags include recurring winner rotation, identical errors in competing bids, unexpected withdrawals and losing bidders receiving subcontracts. Advance knowledge of a rival’s confidential bid price gives the pattern a particularly concrete explanation.
A purchasing team sees the offers and awards. An estimator may know who supplied the number. Sales or finance may know what the losing bidder received afterward. Those accounts can connect the bid history to the agreement behind it.
Investigators detect bid rigging by connecting bidding patterns with communications, instructions and the way contracts were carried out. Statistical screening helps identify transactions worth examining. The people and documents explain the decisions.
Bids that rise as delivery distances shrink are a reason to investigate the pricing pattern.
The 2018 construction-bidding review describes cartel members’ road-construction bids that were less closely connected to service costs than offers from bidders outside the cartel. That is the useful question for someone who knows the work: what explains a price that has stopped following the costs of doing the job?
A useful account connects the companies, the product or service, the communications and what changed in actual bids or prices. The Justice Department also asks how the activity affected prices, better products and customer choice.
We work with the part you know: who set the quote, who received it, which customer it covered and how the submitted offer followed the instruction. Bid versions, customer allocations, correspondence and payment records can give that account its detail.
A whistleblower can explain the decision that a spreadsheet only records. An employee, purchasing official, customer or competitor may know why a bidder withdrew, how rivals exchanged prices or what a supposed loser received.
In the Berg Companies case, the whistleblowers included a former salesperson for a sub-vendor and the managing director of a business selling equipment through the same government purchasing program.
Government bid rigging substitutes coordinated offers for the competition the public buyer expects. When the arrangement causes false claims for government payment, a whistleblower’s qui tam case under the False Claims Act can pursue the money.
Berg manufactured rigid wall shelters sold to military customers through a prime vendor. The purchasing contracts required at least two independent bids below $25,000 and at least three at or above that threshold. The purpose was to obtain a competitive price.
In its civil settlement announcement, the Justice Department said Berg admitted coordinating inflated quotes so sub-vendors would win at inflated prices. Berg agreed to pay $3.3 million to resolve the False Claims Act allegations. The government alleged that military customers were overcharged.
The manufacturer, prime vendor and sub-vendors occupied different places in the sale. The prime vendor was supposed to obtain independent quotes. An insider who knows how those quotes were assembled can explain why the buyer’s comparison failed.
In its complaint against GS Caltex, Hanjin Transportation and SK Energy over U.S. military fuel purchases in South Korea, the government alleged that bids below the cartel’s agreed prices were still above competitive levels.
The three main federal antitrust laws protect competition in different ways:
The Justice Department brings federal criminal antitrust prosecutions and civil competition cases. The Federal Trade Commission handles civil competition enforcement, and state attorneys general enforce state antitrust laws. Buyers, workers and businesses can also pursue private claims for qualifying harm.
Price fixing is an agreement among competitors over prices or the terms that determine what customers pay. It can reach discounts, surcharges and other price components. Bid rigging manipulates a tender. Price fixing can operate across sales without a tender, and the same arrangement can do both.
Yes. Rivals can violate antitrust law by agreeing to leave customers, territories or markets to each other. The customer loses the competing offer before there is even a price to compare.
For a cartel, the central question is what competitors agreed to do and how they put it into practice. For monopolization, it is how a business gained or kept its market power by shutting out competition.
An unlawful tying arrangement uses power over one product to force customers to take another and restrict competition.
A merger can be unlawful when it threatens to substantially reduce competition, affecting customers’ choices and prices or workers’ choices and wages.
Speak with our whistleblower experts about anonymity and confidentiality. We address your circumstances with you and the whistleblower lawyers suited to the matter, starting with your concerns about your identity and your employer.
We address protection questions with you and the antitrust whistleblower lawyers suited to your case.
We assess deadlines against the conduct and the reporting route with you.
Employees, buyers, vendors and competitors can hold useful evidence of antitrust violations.
If you helped prepare the bids or carried out an instruction, bring that into our conversation. We address participation, leniency and immunity questions with you and antitrust whistleblower lawyers who understand the conduct involved.
A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.
Private antitrust damages compensate buyers, workers or businesses for their own qualifying losses. We assess those losses separately from payment for exposing the conduct.
We assess your potential reward from the reporting route, evidence and recovery your case could support. The useful starting point is the arrangement you know and the transactions it affected.
Start with our whistleblower experts. We connect the bidding or pricing decisions you know to the evidence and reward route, and bring in antitrust whistleblower lawyers with the experience your case needs.
If you know who supplied the losing quote, chose the winner or arranged the rival’s share, speak to our Whistleblower Experts about the agreement behind the offers. We build the case around that knowledge, find antitrust whistleblower lawyers for the scheme involved and stay beside you through the pursuit of the recovery and your reward.