Antitrust

On November 21, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) achieved a significant milestone in antitrust enforcement when a Nevada federal court sentenced Eduardo Lopez to forty months in prison. This marks the DOJ’s first successful wage-fixing sentencing following a jury verdict, ending a string of prior losses in labor market prosecutions.

Lopez was sentenced for his role in a conspiracy to fix the wages of home healthcare nurses in the Las Vegas area between 2016 and 2019. Additionally, Lopez was convicted on five counts of wire fraud for concealing DOJ’s antitrust investigation from the buyer of his home healthcare staffing company.

The penalties imposed on Lopez were substantial:

• Prison term: 40 months in custody
• Criminal fine: $550,000
• Restitution: $2.5 million paid to the defrauded purchaser of his company

Notably, while the sentence included restitution for the buyer of Lopez’s company, it did not require restitution for the nurses harmed by the wage-fixing conspiracy.

A Turning Point for Labor Market Enforcement

The sentence represents a victory for the current administration, which has maintained a focus on anticompetitive behavior in labor markets. Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater stated, “[f]ar from being a mere ‘technical violation,’ wage-fixing is a real crime that harms innocent people — in this case nurses — and today’s sentence — the Justice Department’s first ever wage-fixing conviction — reflects that such conduct will not be resolved with a fine.” Attorney General Pam Bondi noted that “American workers are the bedrock of President Trump’s administration.” She also vowed that DOJ “will continue to tirelessly fight for the innocent, like the hardworking nurses harmed in this case.”

Before 2016, the DOJ did not treat standalone no-poach or wage-fixing agreements as criminal conduct. Now, the federal government has sought criminal liability for several such agreements, albeit unsuccessfully until Lopez:

1. In United States v. Jindal, defendants, accused of conspiring with a competitor to lower wages for physical therapists and their assistants, were acquitted of all charges in a wage-fixing criminal prosecution.
2. In United States v. DaVita Inc.,defendants were charged with a no-poach agreement regarding certain employees in the healthcare industry but were acquitted on all charges.
3. In United States v. Manahe, a jury acquitted defendants of conspiring to enter a no-poach agreement and to fix wages for home health aides.
4. In United States v. Hee, the corporate defendant chose a plea agreement and the individual defendant entered into a pretrial diversion agreement, allowing him to avoid a criminal conviction, for a conspiracy to allocate nurses and to fix wages.
5. In United States v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, defendants were charged with entering into a no-poach agreement targeting senior-level employees. DOJ wound up voluntarily dismissing the case in light of four previous no-poach losses.

The mixed outcomes show how complex it can be to prove criminal liability in labor market antitrust cases. The DOJ’s success in Lopez may be the result of its growing experience in building wage-fixing and no-poach cases, including improving its investigatory processes and better explaining to jurors when complex antitrust violations may constitute criminal conduct warranting imprisonment. The superseding indictment, which added five counts of wire fraud to Lopez’s case, also may have been an important factor in persuading the jury of Lopez’s culpability. Time will tell whether DOJ’s case selection for wage-fixing matters will prioritize conduct that can be charged alongside other indictments.

Criminal Sentencing

U.S. District Judge Cristina D. Silva followed the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to calculate Lopez’s sentence. Sentencing for antitrust offenses starts at a base offense level of 12 (roughly 10–15 months of imprisonment for a first-time offender) and the calculation can increase or decrease based on the defendant’s degree of participation, the volume of commerce attributable to the defendant’s actions, and any aggravating or mitigating adjustments, such as whether the conspiracy was extensive.

Sentencing recommendations will also balance the following factors: (1) seriousness of the offense; (2) promoting respect for the law; (3) just punishment; (4) affording deterrence to future criminal conduct; (5) avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities; (6) offering the defendant an opportunity for rehabilitation and correctional treatment; and (7) the need for the defendant to provide restitution to any victims.

While Lopez was found to be the organizer of the wage-fixing offense and was eligible for a sentence of 70 months, Judge Silva lessened the sentence based on Lopez’s contrition and his demonstrated remorse.  

What Does This Mean for Future Enforcement?

With its first criminal sentencing in a wage-fixing case, DOJ is likely to have renewed confidence in enforcing similar claims and pursuing comparable sentences in the future. Both companies and individuals should be mindful of the potential shift in the landscape of criminal antitrust enforcement and assess the best path to take when facing potential criminal exposure:

• Increased Risk: DOJ’s successful prosecution in Lopez may embolden it to pursue more criminal antitrust labor convictions, rather than civil settlements.
• Trial Strategy: Defendants may be less likely to reject plea deals and proceed to trial, as Lopez did in August 2023.
• Importance of Compliance: Companies are advised to implement robust antitrust compliance programs, particularly guiding HR professionals, to mitigate the risk of misconduct and potential liability.
• Applications for Leniency: If a suspected violation has occurred, companies should consider whether applying for leniency might be appropriate to avoid more severe criminal penalties.
• Disclosure: Lopez’s wire fraud conviction highlights the critical importance of disclosing active investigations during corporate sales to avoid fraud claims.