A New Era in Private Antitrust Litigation Emerges as Government Oversight Declines
In a bold move signaling a shift in antitrust enforcement strategy, four former federal attorneys—including three from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—have launched a new plaintiffs’ law firm, Simonsen Sussman, dedicated to litigating unfair competition and price discrimination cases. Based in New York, the firm is stepping into a regulatory vacuum created by recent federal cutbacks and enforcement retreats, particularly under the second Trump administration.
Simonsen Sussman aims to address what its founders describe as “gaps” in the current antitrust landscape—areas where existing laws have been underutilized or deprioritized by federal agencies. Their mission is to pursue cases using longstanding but often overlooked legal tools, such as the Robinson-Patman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, to hold corporate giants accountable in sectors where traditional government enforcement has waned.
Why This Matters: Declining Federal Antitrust Oversight
Recent actions by the FTC suggest a retreat from robust antitrust enforcement:
-
FTC Headcount Reduction: The agency has been undergoing staff cuts, with more than 90 employees departing in 2025 alone. The goal is to trim the agency’s size by 10%.
-
Abandonment of Robinson-Patman Act Cases: The FTC dropped a major price discrimination case against Pepsi earlier this year, raising concerns about its willingness to pursue longstanding antitrust violations.
-
Institutional Constraints: Internal investigations and bureaucratic delays have hindered the FTC’s ability to take swift, decisive action on complex antitrust issues.
With federal agencies stepping back, the door has opened for experienced attorneys in the private sector to step forward—and Simonsen Sussman is positioning itself as a national leader in this emerging space.
The Founders: A Powerhouse Team of Public-to-Private Litigators
The firm’s leadership includes:
-
Catherine Simonsen – A seasoned FTC official with extensive experience in competition law and consumer protection.
-
Shaoul Sussman – A leading voice on technology market regulation and vertical integration.
-
Nicolas Stebinger – Known for his work on complex litigation at the FTC, including digital markets.
-
Kate Brubacher – Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas under the Biden administration.
Together, they bring decades of high-level litigation experience and insider knowledge of federal enforcement practices, giving them a strategic advantage in targeting systemic abuses.
Targeting Underused Antitrust Laws
Simonsen Sussman’s strategy centers on leveraging dormant or overlooked laws that have lost traction at the federal level:
Robinson-Patman Act
This Depression-era statute prohibits sellers from offering discriminatory pricing to favored buyers, undermining competition. While rarely enforced by the government in recent decades, private litigation under the act is seeing renewed interest—particularly in consumer goods and retail.
California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
This broad statute provides remedies for business practices deemed unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. It has proven particularly powerful in cases involving Big Tech and e-commerce, including the recent Epic Games v. Apple ruling, in which a federal judge found a violation of California’s UCL even when federal claims failed.
Broader Industry Context: Surging Private Antitrust Claims
The rise of private enforcement mirrors broader discontent with federal antitrust policy. Plaintiffs’ law firms are increasingly taking on the role traditionally played by regulators—especially as courts show growing willingness to scrutinize corporate consolidation, digital monopolies, and pricing schemes.
This is part of a nationwide trend where states and private actors fill regulatory voids, filing lawsuits that not only seek damages but also reshape market behavior. The FTC’s retreat under current leadership is accelerating this dynamic.
Implications for the Legal and Business Communities
The emergence of firms like Simonsen Sussman signals a significant development in U.S. competition law:
-
For Plaintiffs: Consumers, businesses, and competitors harmed by anticompetitive practices may now find robust advocates outside traditional government channels.
-
For Corporations: Compliance risk is increasing, even as federal enforcement wanes. Companies must prepare for aggressive private lawsuits, especially in jurisdictions with strong state-level protections.
-
For the Legal Profession: A new niche is opening for attorneys with federal experience to move into high-impact, socially relevant private litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Why did these former FTC lawyers start a new firm?
They believe federal antitrust enforcement has declined under political and institutional pressure. Their firm seeks to fill that gap by using private litigation to enforce laws the government is no longer prioritizing.
What is the Robinson-Patman Act, and why is it important?
This 1936 law prohibits certain forms of price discrimination by manufacturers and suppliers. Although rarely enforced by the government in recent decades, it’s becoming a tool for private firms to challenge unfair pricing practices.
How does California’s Unfair Competition Law fit into this?
California’s UCL is one of the most powerful state-level consumer protection laws. It allows plaintiffs to bring cases where federal laws may not apply or succeed, especially in technology and consumer markets.
Does this mean the FTC is no longer enforcing antitrust laws?
Not entirely. The FTC continues to pursue some cases, but the agency has reduced its headcount and deprioritized certain enforcement efforts. As a result, many potential violations go unchallenged unless pursued privately.
Will more law firms follow this model?
It’s likely. With the rise of complex markets and digital monopolies, there is increasing demand for skilled antitrust litigators. The success of Simonsen Sussman could encourage more federal attorneys to enter private practice focused on public interest goals.
