Overview
Collusion through pricing algorithms remains a central concern for the US Department of Justice. On June 27, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General (PDAAG) Roger P. Alford spoke at the International Association of Privacy Professionals' 2025 Digital Policy Leadership Retreat on the Trump administration's enforcement approach towards algorithmic collusion.[1] He stated that algorithmic price fixing will continue to be a high enforcement priority for the DOJ Antitrust Division, as he highlighted new actions from this administration and endorsed the Biden administration's prior actions on this topic.
PDAAG Alford explained the administration's view that algorithmic collusion is a fundamental threat to competition that warrants strong enforcement. "If we do not take a strong stand now against algorithmic collusion, we will see this new form of price fixing destroying effective competition across a whole range of digital markets." Artificial intelligence may soon enable "autonomous algorithmic collusion," where algorithms operate fully automated cartels without any human involvement. These statements are consistent with then-DAAG Alford's February 2018 speech when he touched on the increased use of pricing algorithms and how they permit easier or more effective ways for firms to collude in violation of the antitrust laws.[2] At the time, he warned of the difficulty of proving pricing algorithm violations, as enforcers had to show proof of concerted action or risk "discourag[ing] innovation and deter[ring] efficiency enhancing pricing," and dedicated the DOJ to doing so.
In the June speech, PDAAG Alford highlighted DOJ actions to meet those standards, addressing alleged algorithmic collusion threats in healthcare and housing. For healthcare, back in March, DOJ filed a statement of interest in a civil class action case brought by private plaintiffs, In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation (N.D. Ill.). The plaintiffs in this case allege that major health insurers colluded to suppress reimbursement for out-of-network medical services. The alleged collusion occurred through the insurers' use of MultiPlan, a subscription algorithm that allegedly collects competitively sensitive pricing information from insurers and uses that information to "optimize" reimbursements to providers. DOJ's statement of interest argued against two defenses the health insurers asserted — that competitors using a common pricing algorithm only collude if they use the algorithm in the same way, and that decisions made by an intermediary do not amount to collusion. On the first point, DOJ argued that the MultiPlan defendants misstated the law, because "[u]nder well-established precedent, there can be concerted action subject to Section 1 setting the starting points of prices even if the conspirators have some discretion in choosing how often to follow them."[3] On the second, DOJ explained that sharing confidential pricing information through an intermediary is indistinct from sharing pricing information in a direct meeting with a competitor in a smoke-filled room because both actions accomplish the same anticompetitive ends.
For real estate, DAAG Alford highlighted the ongoing United States v. RealPage, Inc. (M.D.N.C.) case brought by the Biden administration. In that case, the United States alleges that RealPage. Inc.'s rent-optimizing algorithm collected competitively sensitive pricing information from numerous corporate landlords for urban apartment buildings and optimized their collective prices. The case is currently at the motion to dismiss stage, where the defendants have argued, in part, that the government has failed to prove evidence of market power and price increases. Though not mentioned in DAAG Alford's speech, the Biden DOJ also filed an amicus brief in support of private plaintiffs in a similar case pending in the 9th Circuit, Gibson v. Cendyn Group, urging reversal of the lower court's grant of a motion to dismiss. The DOJ's amicus brief made similar arguments to its statement of interest in the In re MultiPlan case, particularly, that non-binding price suggestions recommended by an algorithm can still amount to an unlawful agreement to fix prices among the companies using that algorithm.[4] The DOJ urged the Ninth Circuit to allow an inference of collusion at the motion to dismiss stage when key information about the functions of a proprietary pricing algorithm that would prove or disprove the existence of collusion can only be obtained through discovery.[5] Steptoe previously wrote about RealPage and Gibson here.
In his concluding remarks, PDAAG Alford repeated President Trump’s position that “Big Tech has stifled Little Tech innovation and competition” and that “[w]e are pro Little Tech and welcome Little Tech innovation.” While this reassurance is generally good news for “Little Tech,” it is noteworthy that the targets of the algorithmic collusion actions to date have been against Little Tech companies (e.g., RealPage, Cendyn, and MultiPlan), in contrast to the government’s blockbuster cases against Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. PDAAG Alford’s discussion of both the enforcement actions and the note of support for Little Tech indicate that the administration will support small, innovative tech companies, but will not hesitate to enforce the antitrust laws when Little Tech crosses the line.
Going forward, firms — big and little — that use third party pricing algorithms should be aware of the heightened risk of government actions targeting algorithmic collusion.[6] This is especially true if DOJ's argument in its Gibson amicus brief prevails — that the existence of collusion can be inferred at the early stages of litigation from the fact that an algorithm collects multiple companies' competitively sensitive pricing information.
[1] Off. of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, PDAAG Roger P. Alford Delivers Remarks to the International Association of Privacy Professionals (June 26, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/pdaag-roger-p-alford-delivers-remarks-international-association-privacy-professionals.
[2] Archives, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford Delivers Remarks at King’s College in London (Feb. 13, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/speech/deputy-assistant-attorney-general-roger-alford-delivers-remarks-kings-college-london.
[3] Statement of Interest of the United States at 5, In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-06795, MDL No. 3121 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 27, 2025).
[4] Br. for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Pls.-Appellants at 29-32, Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC, No. 24-3576 (9th Cir. filed Oct. 24, 2024).
[5] Id. at 37.
[6] The European Commission appears to be ramping up algorithmic collusion enforcement as well, adding additional risk for businesses operating in Europe. See Rashid Baxter, EU Reveals Existence of Algorithmic Pricing Cases, Global Competition Review (July 9, 2025), https://globalcompetitionreview.com/article/eu-reveals-existence-of-algorithmic-pricing-cases.
