Washington D.C. Antitrust Investigation Procedures

The District of Columbia Antitrust Act (D.C. Official Code § 28-4501 et seq.) is the primary statute governing antitrust behavior in the city. It broadly prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, as well as monopolization and attempts to monopolize. The Act is enforced by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, who has the authority to initiate investigations and file lawsuits against violators. This comprehensive law serves as the foundation for the district's efforts to maintain a fair and competitive marketplace. It also allows for both civil and criminal penalties, demonstrating the seriousness with which the D.C. government views anticompetitive conduct.

Violations under the D.C. Antitrust Act include well-known offenses such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation, as well as other anticompetitive agreements that can harm consumers. The law also specifically targets abuses of monopoly power, which can manifest in various forms, such as predatory pricing or exclusive dealing arrangements. The penalties for these violations can be severe, including substantial civil fines, court-ordered injunctions, and in certain egregious cases, even criminal charges. Companies must ensure their business practices do not fall into these prohibited categories, as a single violation could have devastating financial and reputational consequences.

Investigations often begin when a competitor, consumer, or other interested party files a formal complaint with the OAG. Referrals from other government agencies or whistleblower tips can also trigger an inquiry. The OAG will then conduct an initial review to determine if the complaint has merit and warrants a formal investigation. This preliminary assessment is a crucial step, as it filters out unsubstantiated claims and focuses the agency's resources on more credible allegations of anticompetitive conduct. A well-documented complaint that includes specific evidence of wrongdoing is far more likely to lead to a full-scale investigation.

The OAG may also initiate an investigation on its own accord. This often happens when the agency identifies anticompetitive patterns in a particular market or industry through its own research and monitoring. For example, the OAG might notice unusual pricing trends or a lack of new entrants in a specific sector, prompting a closer look. The OAG can independently open an investigation without a specific complaint, based on its broad statutory authority to enforce antitrust laws and protect the public interest. This proactive approach underscores the OAG's commitment to market oversight and means that even businesses that have not received a complaint could still face an investigation.

A Civil Investigative Demand (CID) is a formal request for documents, information, or oral testimony. It is similar to a federal subpoena and is a powerful tool used by the OAG to obtain evidence. The CID will specify the conduct being investigated and the materials to be produced, giving the recipient a clear understanding of the scope of the inquiry. Responding to a CID is a complex and time-sensitive process that requires careful attention to detail and a thorough understanding of the legal requirements. Failure to comply or providing incomplete information can lead to legal action by the OAG to enforce the demand.

In addition to CIDs, the OAG can use standard discovery procedures, including interrogatories (written questions) and requests for admissions. Depositions of key personnel and witnesses may also be conducted to gather sworn testimony. All information and testimony obtained during this phase can be used as evidence in subsequent legal proceedings. This part of the investigation is particularly demanding, as it requires a significant amount of a company's resources to collect and produce relevant materials. Legal teams must meticulously prepare witnesses for depositions and ensure all responses are accurate and consistent to avoid undermining their case.

Many antitrust investigations are resolved through a negotiated settlement without the need for a formal lawsuit. A consent decree is a legally binding agreement between the OAG and the company under investigation. It typically requires the company to cease the anticompetitive behavior and may include civil penalties. This process allows the company to resolve the matter confidentially and avoid the costs and uncertainties of a public trial. A consent decree can also include provisions for ongoing compliance monitoring to ensure the company adheres to the agreed-upon terms.

If a settlement cannot be reached, the OAG may file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The lawsuit seeks a judgment that the company has violated antitrust laws and requests remedies, such as injunctions, fines, or other penalties. This process involves a full trial, where both sides present their evidence and arguments to a judge or jury. Litigation is often a long, costly, and public process, making settlement a more attractive option for many companies. The final judgment in a litigated case can have far-reaching implications, setting legal precedents and imposing severe, long-term restrictions on a company’s operations.