Hogan Lovells (Washington)

Benjamin F. Holt

Hogan Lovells (Washington)

Ben Holt is a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Hogan Lovells. He litigates and resolves antitrust and competition disputes and helps clients navigate complex antitrust issues and handle government and internal investigations. Ben has significant experience defending class actions following governmental investigations and coordinating litigation and investigations across borders. He has also handled numerous stand-alone antitrust lawsuits and investigations covering a range of competition issues from mergers to price-fixing, and everything in between. Ben has litigated antitrust cases on both sides of the "v" and brings this experience to his counseling practice. He regularly advises clients on antitrust and competition issues arising from business deals and disputes and provides counseling on compliance with federal and state antitrust laws. He has experience in a wide range of industries, but has focused most of his work on financial services, automotive, and health care. Ben has published a variety of articles on antitrust and antitrust litigation topics and regularly presents to clients and others on developments in the field and relevant antitrust topics such as antitrust compliance for trade associations and strategies to defend antitrust class actions. He is the co-editor of Global Competition Review’s "Private Litigation Know How" publication and the co-author of Antitrust Compliance, published by Bloomberg BNA as part of the Corporate Practice series. Ben also serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching a seminar on antitrust practice and writing.

Linked authors

Hogan Lovells (Madrid)
Hogan Lovells (London)
Hogan Lovells (London)
Hogan Lovells (Washington)
Hogan Lovells (Washington)


1088 Bulletin

Katie Hellings, Logan Breed, Benjamin F. Holt, Lauren E. Battaglia, Chuck Loughlin, Dan Shulak, George Ingham, Katy Forsstrom, John Hamilton The US FTC proposes a new rule to ban nearly all employee noncompete agreements


On 5 January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Non-Compete Clause Rule. The proposed rule, if adopted, would effectively ban the use of non-competes with employees by making the use of such non-competes a violation of Section 5 of (...)

Katie Hellings, Benjamin F. Holt, Liam Phibbs, Daniel E. Shulak The US DoJ submits a statement of interest in a Nevada state court lawsuit filed by a group of anesthesiologists alleging that non-compete provisions in their employment agreements with a medical group violate State law (Pickert Medical Group)


On 25 February the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest in a Nevada State court lawsuit filed by a group of anesthesiologists alleging that non-compete provisions in their employment agreements with Pickert Medical Group violate state law. DOJ did not weigh in (...)

William Tripp Monts, Chuck Loughlin, Edith Ramirez, Justin W. Bernick, Benjamin F. Holt The US District Court for the Northern District of California announces a $100,000 fine and sentences a former CEO to 40 months in prison for his role in a tuna price fixing conspiracy involving two competitors (Bumble Bee Foods)


On 16 June 2020, the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods LLC was sentenced to 40 months in prison and fined US$100,000 for his role in a tuna price-fixing conspiracy involving two competitors. This sentence is one of the most significant penalties ever imposed on a corporate executive in a criminal (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Supreme Court finds that there was no abuse of dominance in a dominant firm’s requirements against competitors because the market is a two-sided platform (American Express)


Brief summary of facts After merchant plaintiffs brought a private enforcement action against American Express in 2008, [1] the United States and several individual states similarly brought suit in 2010, alleging that American Express’s use of anti-steering provisions in its contracts with (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Supreme Court vacates the Court of Appeals’ ruling and declares that submissions by foreign governments on their law must be accorded respect but are not binding (Animal Science Products / Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical)


Brief summary of facts Claimants were purchasers of vitamin C, and brought suit alleging that a group of Chinese manufacturers/exporters of the vitamin had illegally fixed prices. In denying the Chinese companies’ motion to dismiss, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms that a food manufacturer is in a direct purchaser relationship and can claim damages for anticompetitive practices from an egg producer’s third party supplier


Brief summary of facts Claimant food manufacturers alleged that defendant egg producers conspired to reduce the population of egg-laying hens, resulting in supracompetitive pricing in the market for shell eggs and egg products. Defendants argued that a portion of the total amount of egg (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court judgment for titanium dioxide purchaser on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to allege a conspiracy to fix prices (Valspar / DuPont)


Brief summary of facts Valspar sued DuPont for conspiring to fix prices for titanium dioxide in violation of the Sherman Act. Valspar – a purchaser of titanium dioxide – alleged that the conspiracy resulted in supracompetitive prices and sued to recover US$176 million that Valspar claimed it (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the right of app purchasers to sue a Big Tech company for monopolisation of the market for apps under the indirect-purchaser rule of Illinois Brick (Apple / Pepper)


Brief summary of facts Claimants — purchasers of iPhones and iPhone apps — brought suit alleging that Apple had monopolised the market for iPhone apps. In the iPhone "closed system," Apple controls which apps will run on the iPhone software and, through its App Store, Apple earns a 30% (...)

Benjamin F. Holt The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms that horizontal price-fixing constitutes a per se antitrust violation and a claimant alleging a per se antitrust violation does not need to plead harm to competition (Gelbiom / Bank of America)


Brief summary of facts Claimants were purchasers of financial instruments whose rate of return was indexed to the London Interbank Offered Rate, and the defendants were members of the panel that determined the LIBOR each day. Claimants alleged that the defendant banks colluded to (...)


Total visits

Number of readings per contribution

Number of contributions

Author's ranking
In number of contributions
In number of visits
In average number of visits
Send a message