Drug Discovery and Development

  • Home Drug Discovery and Development
  • Drug Discovery
  • Women in Pharma and Biotech
  • Oncology
  • Neurological Disease
  • Infectious Disease
  • Resources
    • Video features
    • Podcast
    • Voices
    • Views
    • Webinars
  • Pharma 50
    • 2025 Pharma 50
    • 2024 Pharma 50
    • 2023 Pharma 50
    • 2022 Pharma 50
    • 2021 Pharma 50
  • Advertise
  • SUBSCRIBE

Biden administration’s antitrust campaign a concern for pharma

By Brian Buntz | December 15, 2022

FTC-DOJLast year, the Biden administration drafted an executive order that promoted competition in the U.S. economy across several industries, including pharma and biotech. The focus on the pharma industry was not surprising, given Biden’s campaign pledge to curb drug pricing.

To that end, the Biden administration has explored a variety of approaches, according to Robin Adelstein, the global head of antitrust and competition and co-head of commercial litigation, U.S. at Norton Rose Fulbright.

In November, the FTC signaled its intent to provide guidance for enforcement of the FTC Act, passed in 1914, to regulate monopolies and eliminate unfair competition and deceptive business practices.

Robin Adelstein

Robin Adelstein

“For a long time, the FTC Act has been interpreted as being coextensive with the antitrust laws,” Adelstein said.

In 2015, FTC released the Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding ‘Unfair Methods of Competition’ Under Section 5 of the FTC Act to clarify its thinking on what constituted unfair competition. But on July 2021, FTC Commissioner Lina Kahn withdrew that statement, arguing that the 2015 statement hampered the agency’s ability to “identify and combat unfair methods of competition even if they do not violate a separate antitrust statute.”

“What the FTC said is that they are going to look at a whole bunch of different conduct that could give rise to a claim that might fall short of an antitrust claim,” Adelstein said.

How the FTC’s strategy is changing

Some of the areas the FTC decided to focus on are loyalty discounts as well as bunding and tying arrangements. “This area has been an area that hasn’t had a lot of focus previously,” Adelstein said. “I know that it is an area of concern for any companies involved in the distribution of products and also an area that the pharma companies use quite a lot.”

Loyalty discounts are common in the life sciences industry, but there has not historically been a lot of government enforcement in this area. “You need to be careful about how you challenge a discounting program because, typically, they’re helpful programs,” Adelstein said. “But the government is concerned about entrenching a monopolist in a powerful position so that others can’t compete.”

SEC scrutiny of serial acquisitions

In addition, SEC has signaled its intention to scrutinize companies that serially make small acquisitions that might fly under the radar. While this is most common in the tech sector, it could also create problems in the pharma industry. One concern is that companies with an existing product could acquire a smaller firm with a potentially competitive product to squash potential future competition. “This applies in the tech area where the government has a pretty good focus, but it also applies strongly in the pharma space,” Adelstein said.

Another focus of the Biden administration is price discrimination, where companies discriminate against various purchasers on price at different times. “The government hasn’t brought a price discrimination case in over 20 years, and the FTC has specifically called out price discrimination of potential areas focus,” Adelstein said.

Finally, the U.S. government is also focusing on reverse-payment settlements, which refer to an agreement between a branded drug manufacturer and a generic competitor. “The government has challenged what they call ‘pay-for-delay deals,” Adelstein said. Such deals involve a brand pharmaceutical company making payments to a generic company to keep a generic off the market.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 in FTC v. Actavis that a large and unjustified payment from the brand to the generic to delay generic entry is unlawful or anti-competitive. “There’s been a lot of litigation since that case about what constitutes a large and unjustified payment and what is and isn’t permitted,” Adelstein said.

California also passed legislation in January 2020 in California that makes any presumptive payment unlawful. “The California legislation tried to remove any of the defenses that the pharmaceutical companies might have in cases like this,” Adelstein said.

That statute also applies damages or liability of $20 million for anyone who aids and abets in the settlement agreement. “There are many concerned people about this area and California’s attempt to regulate reverse payment settlements,” Adelstein said.

“I think that’s part of the statute that will ultimately end up being challenged as an excessive fine,” Adelstein said.

Ultimately, there has been a considerable amount of antitrust litigation under the Biden administration. “I counsel a lot in this area,” Adelstein said. “It is a big part of my practice. Any conduct by a branded pharmaceutical company intended to keep generics off the market is potentially subject to scrutiny.”


Filed Under: Drug Discovery, Drug Discovery and Development, Women in Pharma and Biotech
Tagged With: DOJ, FTC, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
 

About The Author

Brian Buntz

As the pharma and biotech editor at WTWH Media, Brian has almost two decades of experience in B2B media, with a focus on healthcare and technology. While he has long maintained a keen interest in AI, more recently Brian has made making data analysis a central focus, and is exploring tools ranging from NLP and clustering to predictive analytics.

Throughout his 18-year tenure, Brian has covered an array of life science topics, including clinical trials, medical devices, and drug discovery and development. Prior to WTWH, he held the title of content director at Informa, where he focused on topics such as connected devices, cybersecurity, AI and Industry 4.0. A dedicated decade at UBM saw Brian providing in-depth coverage of the medical device sector. Engage with Brian on LinkedIn or drop him an email at bbuntz@wtwhmedia.com.

Related Articles Read More >

Sai Life Sciences exec: GLP-1 boom has ‘exploded the peptide field’ as firm opens new center
Novartis in the Pharma 50
Swissmedic approves first malaria treatment for infants
Korean team reports all-in-one cancer nanomedicine in pre-clinical studies
Nektar’s Phase 2b atopic dermatitis win triggers 1,746% analyst target surge, but legal tussle with ex-partner Lilly could complicate path forward
“ddd
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest news and trends happening now in the drug discovery and development industry.

MEDTECH 100 INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
Drug Discovery and Development
  • MassDevice
  • DeviceTalks
  • Medtech100 Index
  • Medical Design Sourcing
  • Medical Design & Outsourcing
  • Medical Tubing + Extrusion
  • Subscribe to our E-Newsletter
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • R&D World
  • Drug Delivery Business News
  • Pharmaceutical Processing World

Copyright © 2025 WTWH Media LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media
Privacy Policy | Advertising | About Us

Search Drug Discovery & Development

  • Home Drug Discovery and Development
  • Drug Discovery
  • Women in Pharma and Biotech
  • Oncology
  • Neurological Disease
  • Infectious Disease
  • Resources
    • Video features
    • Podcast
    • Voices
    • Views
    • Webinars
  • Pharma 50
    • 2025 Pharma 50
    • 2024 Pharma 50
    • 2023 Pharma 50
    • 2022 Pharma 50
    • 2021 Pharma 50
  • Advertise
  • SUBSCRIBE