S. 4107: Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act
Sponsor
Amy Klobuchar
Democrat · MN
Judges should see every antitrust deal before signing off
Why it matters
Most federal antitrust cases end in a negotiated settlement, not a trial, and a judge has to approve it. S. 4107 would require that judge to find evidence the deal actually fixes the competition problem. It would also expose every contact between the companies and government officials, including the White House.
A 1974 law usually called the Tunney Act already requires federal antitrust settlements to be published, opened to public comment, and approved by a judge as being in the public interest. S. 4107 keeps that framework and tightens almost every step of it. Press coverage tied the bill's introduction to criticism of the Justice Department's settlement with Live Nation.
The core change is the test the judge applies. A court could approve a settlement only if it finds a reasonable belief, based on evidence and reasoned analysis, that the deal does not leave room for conduct that creates a material risk of breaking antitrust law. The terms would also have to fit the violations the government alleged, and the judge would not have to defer to the government's predictions about whether its remedy will work.
The public comment window shrinks from 60 days to 45, but the process around it grows. The DOJ or FTC would have to publish its response to comments within 30 days after the window closes, and anyone who commented could file a reply. In merger cases, the companies could not combine the assets until 15 days after that response is published, and a judge could extend the hold if the deal looks unlikely to pass.
The bill also goes after what happens off the record. Companies would have to disclose any commitments they made to the government that are not written into the settlement, and explain how the deal fixes the competition risk. The government's log of contacts about the case would have to list the date, author, recipient, and every participant in each written or oral communication, and would cover the Executive Office of the President.
If a federal agency tries to drop an antitrust case, any state attorney general could step in and keep it going. The dismissal would have to be published 45 days ahead, the case would be frozen for that period, and a judge would have to let a state substitute in unless the parties show by clear and convincing evidence that the claims cannot succeed. Judges could also order testimony about payments, donations, or policy changes offered to government officials that may be connected to the case.
Bill Progress
Latest Action · Mar 17, 2026
Read twice and Referred to the Judiciary. for review
S. 4107 Bill Summary
What S. 4107 actually does.
Judges must see evidence the settlement works
A court could approve a consent judgment only on a reasonable belief, based on evidence and reasoned analysis, that it does not permit conduct creating a material risk of violating antitrust law and is reasonably tailored to the alleged violations. The judge need not defer to the government's predictions about its own remedy.
Every contact about the case gets logged
Disclosures of communications between the parties and federal officials, now expressly including the Executive Office of the President, must list the date and every author, recipient, and participant. Courts may order the communications themselves produced, along with related documents and testimony.
Side deals must be put on the record
Companies must disclose commitments made to the DOJ or FTC that are not written into the proposed settlement, explain how the proposal remedies the competition risk, and describe the settlement offers and divestitures that were considered and how.
States can take over a dropped case
A federal motion to voluntarily dismiss an antitrust case must be filed with the court and published in the Federal Register at least 45 days ahead, with the case stayed in the meantime. Any state attorney general may move to substitute in, and the court must grant it unless the parties show by clear and convincing evidence that no claim can succeed.
Merging companies wait for the public record
In merger cases, the parties must keep the deal's assets separate until 15 days after the government files and publishes its response to public comments. A judge can extend that hold, and violating it carries the same civil penalties as closing a merger before the legal waiting period ends.
Faster comments, with a required answer
The public comment period drops from 60 days to 45. The government must respond within 30 days after it closes, and commenters may file replies.
Payments and donations can be examined
Judges may order information or testimony about any benefit a party provided or offered to the government or its employees, including payments, donations, or changes in policy or business practices, that may be connected to the case.
FTC settlements get the same review
The rules apply expressly to the Federal Trade Commission, including its administrative cases, which could be brought before the federal court where a defendant is incorporated or headquartered.
Who benefits from S. 4107?
State attorneys general
They could take over a federal antitrust case the DOJ or FTC tries to drop, receive the government's non-privileged case files, and intervene as of right whenever a judge holds an evidentiary hearing on a settlement they asked to be examined.
Consumers and customers of merging companies
Ticket buyers, patients, grocery shoppers, and anyone else paying a company that settles a merger or monopoly case would have a judge checking, on the evidence, that the fix actually protects competition in the market they buy from.
Rivals and small businesses that file comments
A competitor, supplier, or trade group that objects to a settlement would get a written government response within 30 days of the comment period closing and a chance to reply, rather than a response the government can file on its own schedule.
Journalists and public watchdogs
Communication logs naming every participant, including White House contacts, plus disclosure of unwritten side commitments, would make it possible to trace who shaped a settlement.
Who is affected by S. 4107?
Companies settling merger and monopoly cases
They would disclose more, including informal commitments and how remedies were negotiated, could not close a merger until 15 days after the government responds to comments, and would face civil penalties for combining assets early.
DOJ Antitrust Division and the FTC
Both would lose judicial deference on remedies, have to answer public comments on a 30-day deadline, publish fuller contact logs, and give 45 days' public notice before dropping a case, during which a state could take it over.
White House and other federal officials
Communications about a case from anywhere in the executive branch, including the Executive Office of the President, would be logged by name and could be ordered produced in court. Current and former officials could be called to testify.
Federal district judges
Judges would have to make an evidence-based finding before approving a settlement, weigh state requests for hearings, and expedite their decision whenever they extend a hold on a merger.
S4107 Legislative Journey
Committee Action
Mar 17, 2026
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
About the Sponsor
Amy Klobuchar
Democrat, MN · 19 years in Congress
Committees: Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Joint Committee of Congress on the Library
View full profile →
Cosponsors (8)
All 8 cosponsors are Democrats. Cosponsors represent 7 states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and 4 more.
Committee Sponsors
Judiciary Committee
6 of 21 committee members cosponsored
4 Democrats across this committee haven't cosponsored yet. Mobilize their constituents
S. 4107 Quick Facts
- Committee
- Judiciary
- Chamber
- Senate
- Policy
- Commerce
- Introduced
- Mar 17, 2026
Read twice and Referred to the Judiciary. for review
Mar 17, 2026
Official Sources
Official bill page with full text, sponsor and cosponsors, and actions for the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act.
The existing law on antitrust consent judgments, public comment, and the public interest finding that S. 4107 rewrites.
The merger waiting-period statute whose civil penalties S. 4107 applies to companies that combine assets before the new hold ends.
The FTC competition authority the bill cites when extending settlement review to Federal Trade Commission cases.
The DOJ case page for the Live Nation settlement, including the 2026 proposed final judgment and competitive impact statement, that press coverage tied to the bill.
How the FTC and DOJ review large mergers before they close, the process the bill ties its new merger hold to.
The committee S. 4107 was referred to on March 17, 2026, where any markup would happen.
S. 4107 Common Questions
What does the Antitrust Accountability and Transparency Act do?
S. 4107 tightens how judges review settlements in federal antitrust cases. A judge would need evidence that the deal fixes the competition problem, contacts with officials would be logged in detail, and states could take over cases the DOJ or FTC tries to drop.
Can a judge reject a DOJ or FTC antitrust settlement?
Yes, and S. 4107 raises the bar for approval. The judge would need a reasonable belief, based on evidence, that the deal leaves no material risk of illegal conduct and fits the violations alleged, without deferring to the government's predictions about its own remedy.
Could a state keep an antitrust case going if the federal government drops it?
Yes. Under S. 4107, a federal dismissal must be published 45 days in advance and the case is paused. Any state attorney general can move to take it over, and the judge must allow it unless the parties show by clear and convincing evidence the claims cannot succeed.
Would White House contacts about an antitrust case be disclosed?
Yes. S. 4107 expressly adds the Executive Office of the President to the required disclosure of communications about a settlement. Each entry must list the date and every author, recipient, and participant, and a judge can order the communications themselves produced.
Can merging companies close their deal while a settlement is under review?
Not right away. S. 4107 requires them to keep the assets separate until 15 days after the government publishes its response to public comments, and a judge can extend that. Closing early carries the same civil penalties as jumping the standard merger waiting period.
How long do I have to comment on an antitrust settlement?
Today it's 60 days. S. 4107 would cut that to 45, but the government would then have to publish its response within 30 days, and you could file a reply to that response.
Would companies have to disclose side deals made with regulators?
Yes. S. 4107 requires disclosure of commitments made to the DOJ or FTC that are not written into the settlement. Judges could also order testimony about payments, donations, or policy changes offered to officials that may be connected to the case.
Why did Sen. Klobuchar introduce S. 4107?
Press coverage, including Variety's, linked the bill to criticism of the Justice Department's settlement with Live Nation. Klobuchar introduced it on March 17, 2026, with eight Democratic cosponsors, and it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Based on S. 4107 bill text
S. 4107 Bill Text
“To amend section 5 of the Clayton Act to include proposed voluntary dismissals in the court's consideration of proposed consent judgments and clarify the public interest, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1.”
Source: U.S. Government Publishing Office
Get notified when S. 4107 moves
Committee votes, floor action, cosponsor changes — straight to your inbox.
Bill alerts + Legisletter's monthly briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commerce Bills
9 related bills we're tracking
Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
May 7, 2025
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sep 19, 2025
Protecting Circuit Boards and Substrates Act
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
May 23, 2025
Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act
Held at the desk.
Mar 16, 2026
Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Jan 16, 2025
NO FAKES Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Apr 9, 2025
Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held.
May 13, 2026
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Jun 25, 2025
App Store Freedom Act
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
May 6, 2025
Trending Right Now
Bills gaining momentum across Congress
ASAP Act
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 0.
Sep 16, 2026
761st Tank Battalion Congressional Gold Medal Act
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Feb 26, 2025
Federal Firearms Licensee Protection Act of 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 3, 2025
Tracking Commerce in Congress? Monitor bills, track cosponsor momentum, and launch advocacy campaigns — all from one advocacy platform.