Who Investigates Antitrust Violations: Justice Department, FTC and the Agencies Behind a Case

Who investigates antitrust violations depends on the conduct: the Department of Justice handles criminal and civil antitrust cases, the Federal Trade Commission handles civil competition enforcement, and state attorneys general enforce state and federal antitrust laws. The FBI, inspectors general and postal investigators can gather the evidence behind those cases. If you know why a rival stopped bidding, who shared the confidential prices or how a government buyer overpaid, your information may connect several agencies’ work. We help you understand where it fits and build the whistleblower case around it.

Who Enforces Antitrust Law?

The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general enforce antitrust law through different powers. An agreement that rigs a government purchase can bring both antitrust enforcement and a False Claims Act case.

Justice Department Handles Criminal Cartels and Civil Competition Cases

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division investigates and prosecutes price fixing, bid rigging and agreements to divide customers or territories. Its criminal work can also reach fraud, false claims and kickbacks connected to the competitive process. An agreement between supposed competitors can leave evidence in the price instructions, the losing bid and the money paid afterward.

The department also brings civil cases over mergers and conduct that harms competition. Its description of civil enforcement explains that it seeks court orders to stop violations and remedy their effects.

The FTC Handles Civil Competition Enforcement

The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition handles civil competition matters, including mergers and unfair methods of competition. It shares federal civil enforcement responsibility with the Justice Department.

For an insider, a merger that removes a competing supplier raises a different question from a private agreement to submit losing bids. The merger inquiry examines the effect of combining the businesses. The bid-rigging inquiry examines the agreement behind the offers.

State Attorneys General Can Work Across State Lines

State attorneys general investigate anticompetitive conduct and bring cases under state law and authorized federal law. Their work can include mergers, monopolistic practices and collusion affecting consumers, workers or public purchasers.

The Texas Attorney General’s account of its antitrust work makes the reach clear: investigations can be local, regional or national, often conducted jointly with the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission or other states. A state office can be part of a much wider investigation. The affected market and the conduct matter more than the address on the agency’s letterhead.

Which Investigators Gather the Evidence?

The FBI and other investigative agencies gather evidence alongside the Antitrust Division and U.S. Attorney offices. Witness interviews, business records, recordings and searches can connect a suspected agreement to what the companies actually did. The person who receives the first lead may work for a different agency from the prosecutors who bring the case.

An employee may know who agreed to a price. A purchasing official may hold the competing bids. A customer or rival may recognize which offers disappeared. The Justice Department’s law-enforcement primer identifies complaints, other investigations and proactive work as sources of cases. Each can reveal a different part of the arrangement.

The Procurement Collusion Strike Force coordinates that work in public purchasing. It brings together enforcement, referrals, training and analysis concerning procurement, grants and program funding at federal, state and local levels. Its value lies in connecting people who know the purchasing system with people who investigate collusion.

Reporting Cartel Through Inspector General Versus Justice Department Reward Intake

We work through the inspector-general and Justice Department reward questions with you, connecting the purchasing evidence to the whistleblower case it can support.

The Korean military-fuel cases show how the first handoff works. In its account of the criminal investigation, the Justice Department described a Defense Logistics Agency Inspector General hotline tip, an interview and a referral to criminal investigators. The lead moved from the purchasing agency’s oversight office into the criminal investigation.

The related civil case concerned GS Caltex, Hanjin Transportation and SK Energy. The government’s filed account of the alleged scheme described suppliers allocating fuel-contract line items, coordinating prices and submitting deliberately losing bids or no bids. The Defense Logistics Agency awarded individual line items, while the Army and Air Force Exchange Service purchase covered all locations. Those purchasing details explain what the alleged agreement controlled: which supplier would win which business. The offers looked independent, while the government allegedly paid more for its fuel.

A whistleblower also brought a separate qui tam case over the fuel purchases. Hanjin’s settlement identified that False Claims Act case, while the Antitrust Division pursued the competition case and the Civil Division and U.S. Attorney’s office handled the false-claims settlement. The same purchasing records mattered to both the suppressed competition and the government’s payments.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. We examine the bids, representations and government payments with you to identify the case those records support.

Postal Inspectors and the Postal Inspector General Have Different Jobs

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service protects the mail system and investigates crimes affecting it. The Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General is independent, conducting audits, evaluations and investigations concerning its efficiency, accountability and integrity.

The Antitrust/Postal rewards agreement, effective May 7, 2025, joins the Antitrust Division, the Postal Service and its Office of Inspector General. It assigns the postal-harm assessment to the Postal Inspection Service. That distinction matters when an antitrust report also involves documents mailed in support of the scheme.

Postal inspectors assess whether the facts show identifiable harm to the Postal Service, its revenues or property. We assess whether your information supports a reward case with you.

A Private Vehicle Auction Supplied the Postal Connection

The EBLOCK case identifies the auction conduct investigated by the antitrust and postal partners.

The Justice Department’s later explanation of the postal connection identified car titles sent through the mail. The scheme involved a private used-car market. The postal connection lay in documents supporting that scheme.

The FBI and postal inspectors investigated, and the Antitrust Division’s Washington Criminal Section prosecuted. The EBLOCK announcement records the antitrust and postal partners’ first $1 million whistleblower payment. We assess how the mailed documents relate to the conduct and the postal program’s requirements with the insider who understands the transactions.

Where Does OSHA Fit?

OSHA has a role when an antitrust concern involves retaliation. Bring that question to our whistleblower experts alongside the evidence of the antitrust conduct. We work through it with you and the antitrust whistleblower lawyers suited to your case.

What Connects a Bid Pattern to a Case?

The procurement red flags help investigators choose bids to examine, while agreement evidence answers why those bids occurred.

The industry knowledge matters. A buyer knows which suppliers can perform the work. Someone preparing bids knows how the price was assembled. Someone handling the subcontract can explain why a losing rival received work. We connect that knowledge to the offers, communications and payments so the allegation describes an arrangement someone can investigate.

Investigators can compare delivery costs with bid prices before asking who arranged the offers; see the school-milk example.

The Contract Promise and the Vendor Payment

Whistleblowers brought the False Claims Act case against Accenture, and the government joined it. The government’s own complaint shows another reason investigators examine the commercial arrangement. It alleged that vendors paid Accenture for favorable influence in government purchasing and that the company retained resale revenue it had promised to pass through to the Department of Education:

The same complaint alleged that NCR paid Accenture to refrain from bidding on a government hardware contract. The payment, the missing bid and the promise to the government each explain something a price comparison alone cannot. That is why we examine who influenced the purchase, who benefited and what the government was told.

Accenture settled the False Claims Act allegations in September 2011 with the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Arkansas. The settlement resolved allegations of vendor kickbacks, inflated prices and rigged bids.

If I Believe an Antitrust Violation Has Occurred, Whom Do I Contact?

Contact our whistleblower experts to discuss the conduct and the evidence you know. We connect the agreement, the affected market and any government payment or postal connection, then bring in the whistleblower lawyers with the right experience for that case.

If you have questions about your own involvement or confidentiality, we work through those with you and your whistleblower lawyers.

Put Your Knowledge Behind the Case

Explain the conduct to our whistleblower experts so we can identify the investigative and reporting questions it raises.