Overview
On January 29, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced its first whistleblower reward under the Whistleblower Rewards Program that was established in July 2025 in conjunction with the US Postal Service (USPS) ("Whistleblower Reward Program"). The first reward was for $1 million to a whistleblower who provided information that led to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) and a $3.28 million criminal fine for EBLOCK Corporation, a motor vehicle auction site, for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The announcement, coming just six months after the establishment of the program, suggests that the prospect of a large monetary reward is yielding actionable tips. The facts surrounding the first reward also provide some clarity to questions about the workings of the program, including the required nexus to USPS.
The Whistleblower Reward Program offers financial incentives to individuals who provide the Antitrust Division with information that leads to successful criminal antitrust prosecutions that result in criminal fines or other recoveries of at least $1 million. A whistleblower is eligible to receive a reward that can range from 15% to 30% of the money collected by the government, and unlike the Criminal Division's whistleblower pilot program, can be drawn from forms of recovery beyond restitution. The program is a joint initiative with the USPS and the US Postal Inspection Service and is the first time that the Antitrust Division has offered financial incentives to individuals to assist with the prosecution of the antitrust laws. The DOJ press release announcing the program stated, somewhat cryptically, that the goal was to "incentivize individuals to report postal-related antitrust crimes that undermine the competitive process or market competition across industries."
Here, according to the Criminal Information and DPA filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, in November 2020, EBLOCK acquired Company A, another online auction platform for used vehicles, but did not take immediate action to end the bid-rigging conspiracy and fraud at Company A. Instead, for the next two years, persons at Company A were able to conceal their activity and continued to conspire with persons at Company B to suppress competition for used vehicles on Company A's auction website in violation of Sherman Act § 1. The conspiracy included "shill bidding" on the website, which resulted in fake bids placed with the intent to increase prices for the used vehicles.
But what of the nexus to USPS? The DPA does not mention the postal service or the mail at all. In the DOJ press release, Chief Postal Inspector Gary Barksdale is quoted: "In this case, the defendant used the US Mail to send documentation related to the scheme; a scheme that valued illegal profits over protecting unsuspecting car buyers." Elsewhere, the press release notes: "During the course of these actions, various documents in support of the scheme were sent via US Mail." Besides the use of the mail to send documents, there does not appear to be any additional effect on or harm to USPS. Therefore, the answer to questions arising at the outset of the program about how extensive the connection between the postal service and the antitrust crime had to be is that the bar appears to be quite low with mere use of the mail being a qualifying trigger. In other words, if the conduct meets the jurisdictional nexus as set forth in the federal mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1341), the reporting person/entity should qualify for an award under the program (absent any disqualifications).
Other lessons from this first antitrust whistleblower reward include:
- The Whistleblower Rewards Program is up and running and it gives individuals a significant financial incentive to act. As one Antitrust Division official noted: "Remember, the first company in an antitrust cartel that reports its collusion to the Antitrust Division might receive Leniency – but the race is faster now, because employees and their attorneys are incentivized to blow the whistle and beat their companies to the Division's doorstep."
- Companies should review and enhance their antitrust training and compliance programs, including those aspects that encourage internal reporting, to ensure speedy detection and reporting of antitrust concerns to persons within the company who can take action.
- In the merger and acquisition context, thorough and effective due diligence of the target is necessary to avoid the situation that appears to have occurred here – EBLOCK bought Company A and became responsible for the ongoing antitrust criminal conspiracy at Company A that EBLOCK did not detect prior to the purchase or stop promptly after the purchase.
For questions about antitrust compliance or criminal antitrust issues, please contact the authors or your regular contact at Steptoe LLP.
