In mid-February, the Department of Justice experienced a loss of its primary antitrust enforcer — merely weeks before it was set to present one of the year’s most significant antitrust cases in court.

Chief of the Antitrust Division Gail Slater unexpectedly announced her exit, through a post on her personal X account. However, for those closely monitoring the agency, this was far from shocking. For several months, rumors about the division had highlighted conflicts between Slater and her team with DOJ management, exacerbated by President Donald Trump’s tendency towards personal negotiations that raised doubts over who truly held the reins of antitrust enforcement.

During the summer, two of Slater’s principal deputies were dismissed for what the DOJ described as “insubordination.” One of them later recounted opposing a wireless networking agreement between Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks, backed by “MAGA-In-Name-Only” lobbyists and DOJ officials. The week leading to Slater’s resignation, a third deputy also departed the agency.

The timing attracted added attention as Mike Davis, a lobbyist with close ties to Trump involved in the HPE-Juniper transaction, is also believed to be working with Live Nation. Live Nation refrained from commenting on the alleged link. “What was previously happening in private is now occurring publicly,” remarked a former DOJ official, who spoke anonymously to address personnel issues, regarding Slater’s abrupt exit. “Numerous influential corporations have realized they can simply push through unrealistic agreements and outcomes in ways that weren’t viable before, and the only requirement is to pay.” After Slater shared news of her departure, Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed gratitude in a statement “for her contributions to the Antitrust Division that aims to safeguard consumers, promote affordability, and broaden economic prospects.”

In May 2024, the DOJ and a coalition of 40 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Live Nation-Ticketmaster, aiming to dismantle the company they claim utilized anti-competitive practices to bind artists and venues within its sphere. They argue that by allegedly intertwining various segments of its business, employing exclusionary contracts, and threatening “financial retaliation” to exclude new competitors, the company managed to inflate ticket costs for consumers. Live Nation asserted in a blog entry at the time that the lawsuit “overlooks the actual factors responsible for rising ticket prices.”

With the commencement of jury selection for the case set for March 2nd, many are curious if the DOJ will persist in its involvement. If the agency opts to settle and withdraw from the trial, at least some of the 40 states that partnered with the DOJ in the initial lawsuit could — and likely would — continue to pursue the litigation. “We are eager to proceed to trial on March 2 against Live Nation,” declared California’s leading antitrust prosecutor, Paula Blizzard, said during an event on the day of Slater’s announcement. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti also intends to advance the states’ lawsuit, Capitol Forum reported.

The DOJ may very well continue to serve as a principal plaintiff. Omeed Assefi, who is temporarily stepping into Slater’s role, committed to advancing her agenda, MLex reported. As of February 17th, he has indicated the case is solid and leans toward trial, according to Capitol Forum. Global Competition Review also highlighted last week that Assefi urged staff to consider his approach towards criminal antitrust enforcement as a reference for his leadership of the division. “Inquire how I feel about settling cases instead of going to trial,” he reportedly said. “Inquire how I feel about accepting compromises and mere monetary fines instead of pursuing justice.”

Nevertheless, Slater was recognized as a dedicated enforcer of antitrust regulations — and reports imply her agenda was sidelined.

Generally, states are consistently ready for modifications in their trial alliances, according to Gwendolyn Lindsay Cooley, former Wisconsin antitrust chief and chair of the National Association of Attorneys General Multistate Antitrust Task Force. (Cooley consented to speak generally about the role of state enforcement and not on the specifics of the Live Nation case in particular, which Wisconsin was part of during her tenure.) “The states are well-acquainted with real politik,” Cooley remarked. State enforcers recognize that priorities and staffing can shift with administrations, whether in state offices or at the DOJ. Such shifts may necessitate alterations, such as assigning the most capable lawyers to fill vacancies left by federal attorneys. However, Cooley notes there are numerous seasoned litigators within the states. “From discussions with states generally, my understanding is they were prepared for this, and thus should be able to manage it smoothly,” Cooley stated.

The T-Mobile-Sprint merger litigation may offer a precedent. After Trump’s DOJ approved the merger, certain states settled their lawsuits, while others persisted in their efforts to obstruct the merger. Ultimately, however, they were unsuccessful — a court permitted the merger to finalize.

States could take a more assertive approach in pursuing the Live Nation-Ticketmaster proceedings. The company has faced substantial backlash from both musicians and fans, particularly after it infamously mishandled a Taylor Swift concert ticket presale in 2022. In an interview with Bloomberg, the attorneys general of California and Connecticut asserted they would uphold a rigorous standard for any settlements. “Any resolution that is politically motivated or influenced, or any settlement aimed at appeasing the president or meeting his demands is unlikely to be acceptable to Connecticut or California either,” remarked Connecticut AG William Tong.

Indeed, complaints from the public regarding Ticketmaster rank among the top 10 issues state AGs frequently encounter, according to Cooley. “That’s an aspect that state AGs will be particularly attentive to.”

Anthropic asserts that DeepSeek and two other Chinese AI firms have exploited its Claude AI model in an effort to enhance their products. In a statement made on Monday, Anthropic revealed that the “industrial-scale initiatives” entailed the development of approximately 24,000 fake accounts and over 16 million interactions with Claude, as reported previously by The Wall Street Journal.

The three companies — DeepSeek, MiniMax, and Moonshot — are charged with “distilling” Claude, which means training a smaller AI model based on a more sophisticated one. Although Anthropic declares that distillation is a “valid training technique,” it further notes that it can “also serve illicit purposes,” such as “gaining powerful capabilities from other labs much quicker and at a lower cost compared to developing them independently.”

Anthropic contends that models obtained through illicit distillation are “unlikely” to retain existing protective measures. “Foreign laboratories that distill American models can subsequently incorporate these inadequate capabilities into military, intelligence, and surveillance systems — allowing authoritarian regimes to utilize cutting-edge AI for offensive cyber efforts, misinformation campaigns, and mass monitoring,” Anthropic states.

DeepSeek, which shook the AI sector with its potent yet more efficient models, engaged in over 150,000 exchanges with Claude and targeted its cognitive abilities, according to Anthropic. The company is also accused of utilizing Claude to create “censorship-safe options for politically sensitive inquiries concerning dissidents, political leaders, or authoritarianism.” In a correspondence to lawmakers last week, OpenAI also accused DeepSeek of “persistent efforts to leverage the capabilities built by OpenAI and other American frontier laboratories.”

Moonshot and MiniMax collectively managed over 3.4 million and 13 million engagements with Claude, respectively. Anthropic is urging other stakeholders in the AI sector, cloud providers, and legislators to tackle the issue of distillation, asserting that “restricted chip access” could constrain model training and “reduce the extent of illicit distillation.”