A Democratic bill with 9 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act. It changes how the government handles antitrust settlements and court cases involving the Clayton Act. The bill gives federal courts more say in reviewing proposed consent judgments and voluntary dismissals from the government. It also allows the Federal Trade Commission to bring administrative cases into district courts for proper oversight. Additionally, it gives State attorneys general the power to step in if the federal government tries to drop a case. Finally, it creates strict rules requiring companies to keep assets separate during certain merger reviews.
Yes
- Scored +7
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The bill increases state power by allowing state attorneys general to substitute themselves in antitrust cases if the federal government attempts to voluntarily dismiss them.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill improves government transparency by requiring stricter disclosure of communications, settlements, and concessions between parties and government officials during antitrust proceedings.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protection by strengthening antitrust oversight and giving the public and state attorneys general greater power to challenge harmful corporate mergers and consent decrees.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill creates additional legal burdens, reporting requirements, and asset-holding delays that may complicate normal business operations and mergers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
State Level Protection: Under section 2 adding subsection (j)(2), any State attorney general can file a motion to take over a civil proceeding if the federal government or the Federal Trade Commission tries to voluntarily dismiss it. This is a positive outcome because it gives local state officials a direct tool to keep fighting harmful monopolies if federal officials try to back down.
-
Public Comment and Reply: Under section 2(4)(D) and (E), the public is given 45 days to comment on proposed consent judgments, and people who submit comments are explicitly allowed to reply to the responses published by the government. This gives everyday citizens and interested groups a clearer voice and keeps the government accountable during major corporate settlements.
-
Closer Court Oversight: Under section 2(5)(A)(i) and (ii), courts must determine that there is a reasonable belief that a consent judgment does not permit any business practice creating a material risk of violating antitrust laws. This is positive because it stops judges from just rubber-stamping government deals and forces them to make sure the public is actually protected from bad corporate behavior.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Legal Delays: Under section 2(4)(G) adding subsection (j)(2)(A), merging parties are required to hold all assets related to a transaction separate for an extra 15 days after the government files a response to comments, and courts can extend this further. This could slow down normal business operations and create burdens or delays for companies trying to finalize everyday business transactions.
-
More Complex Litigation Costs: Under section 2(6) adding subsections (5) and (6), courts can order the production of extensive communications, documents, and information regarding benefits or concessions offered to the government or the Executive Office of the President. This could lead to massive administrative and legal burdens for the parties involved as they track down every single communication and record requested by the court.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill increases state power by allowing state attorneys general to substitute themselves in antitrust cases if the federal government attempts to voluntarily dismiss them. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill improves government transparency by requiring stricter disclosure of communications, settlements, and concessions between parties and government officials during antitrust proceedings.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by strengthening antitrust oversight and giving the public and state attorneys general greater power to challenge harmful corporate mergers and consent decrees.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill creates additional legal burdens, reporting requirements, and asset-holding delays that may complicate normal business operations and mergers.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Sydney Kamlager-DoveDemocrat · California
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina