AI is no longer a future-facing issue for antitrust lawyers. It is a tool that is changing how investigations, litigation, and merger reviews are handled. It is also the subject of increasing scrutiny by competition authorities. That dual role was the focus of a recent Epiq and CCBJ webinar featuring legal, compliance, litigation, and technology leaders on how AI is reshaping antitrust practice.

Moderated by Erin Toomey, Vice President and leader of the Global Investigations and Antitrust Practice Group at Epiq, the session featured five in-house leaders and law firm practitioners, including:

• David Cross, Partner, Antitrust and Competition Practice, Goodwin
• Maria Georges, Vice Chair of eDiscovery, AI, and Information Governance Group, Covington
• Kim Pryor, Chief Legal and Compliance Officer, JBS Foods USA
• Joy Sherrod, Associate General Counsel and Director of Discovery, Intel
• Brett Beeman, Managing Director, Epiq

AI as a Subject of Antitrust Scrutiny

The panel began with a central question: Can companies’ use of AI create anticompetitive conditions? The consensus was nuanced. AI itself is not inherently problematic, but its use creates risk when it replaces independent decision-making, facilitates coordination among competitors, or relies on competitively sensitive data in ways that influence market behavior.
Panelists emphasized that antitrust fundamentals remain intact. The key questions remain: Are companies making independent business decisions? Are information flows appropriately governed? Are teams using AI tools to inform, not automate, competitive choices such as pricing, output, client allocation, or strategy? Recent attention to algorithmic pricing, information-sharing tools, and AI market power underscores the importance of governance, documentation, and human oversight.

AI as a Tool for Investigations and Litigation

The conversation then turned to how lawyers and regulators are using AI in practice. Agencies and private practitioners are increasingly using AI workflows for early case assessment (ECA), evidence review, document prioritization, thematic clustering, custodian summaries, relationship mapping, and identification of potentially important communications. In antitrust matters, where datasets are often enormous and timelines compressed, these capabilities enable teams to understand facts earlier and focus legal judgment where it matters most.

At the same time, panelists stressed that AI is not a substitute for lawyer judgment. TAR, CAL, and Generative AI accelerate analysis, but defensibility still depends on validation, quality control, transparency, and experienced legal supervision. Ethical duties around competence, accuracy, candor, and confidentiality remain unchanged, even as the tools evolve.

Merger Review, Hart-Scott-Rodino Filings, and Second Requests

AI is also changing merger review. The panel discussed how AI identifies competitive overlaps, client relationships, internal views of competitors, market dynamics, Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) 4(c) and 4(d) materials, and documents relevant to potential theories of harm. For corporate and outside counsel, this meaningfully reduces time-to-insight and supports teams in preparing more effectively for agency engagement.

However, the panel was clear that AI does not determine market definition, competitive effects, efficiencies, or legal conclusions. Those remain economic and legal questions that require expert analysis. Regulators may be technology-neutral, but they are not outcome-neutral: they expect review processes to be reasonable, complete, defensible, and well-documented.

Privilege Review: A High-Value, High-Risk Use Case

One of the most compelling areas discussed was privilege review. AI locates potentially privileged documents, detects communications that keywords may miss, prioritizes high-risk materials, and drafts first-pass privilege log descriptions. This enables more consistent and efficient privilege workflows.

But privilege remains highly nuanced. False negatives when producing privileged material carry significant risk. The panel emphasized that teams should use AI to assist and prioritize, not to make final privilege determinations without lawyer review. Matter-specific training, sampling, validation, and continuous feedback are essential, especially when distinguishing legal advice from business advice or evaluating work product claims.

Key Takeaways

• AI does not change antitrust fundamentals. Independent decision-making, competition on the merits, consumer welfare, and prevention of exclusionary conduct remain central.
• Governance is critical. Companies should document how AI tools are used, what data they rely on, and where human judgment enters the process.
• AI accelerates legal workflows. ECA, document review, merger analysis, deposition preparation, and privilege logging all benefit from AI tools.
• Defensibility still matters. Validation, sampling, quality control (QC), transparency, and lawyer oversight are essential when using AI in investigations, litigation, or regulatory productions.
• Privilege review will evolve, but automation won’t replace it. While AI improves consistency and efficiency, final privilege calls require experienced legal judgment.

The overarching message was practical and balanced: AI is an accelerator, not a replacement for legal judgment. Used thoughtfully, antitrust teams work faster, find key facts earlier, and engage regulators more effectively. Used without governance, oversight, or documentation, it presents new risks in a complex enforcement environment. For antitrust practitioners, the task ahead is not simply to adopt AI, but to deploy it responsibly, defensibly, and in service of sound legal and business judgment.

Learn more about Epiq Global Investigations Services.
 

Brett Beeman, Managing Director, Advanced Technologies
Brett has over a decade of project management and technology consulting experience working with the largest discovery projects at Epiq, including several Second Requests. Brett has developed numerous custom solutions to solve unique client problems and is a go-to for both colleagues and clients for subject matter expertise.


Edward Burke, Managing Director, Antitrust and Global Investigations Practice Group
Ed has overseen document review projects for over 100 complex matters in the US, Canada, and Europe, including over 50 merger reviews. He has more than 15 years of litigation experience at major law firms. Ed has litigated cases for a wide variety of clients, including Shell, Reuters, H&R Block, and the NBA Players Association.


Erin Toomey, Vice President and Leader, Antitrust and Global Investigations Practice Group
Erin has over 17 years of experience in eDiscovery, with specific expertise in antitrust and global investigations. She has advised and partnered with antitrust and global investigation clients in negotiations directly with the DOJ and FTC related to productions standards, provisions for TAR compliance, foreign language translation, and timing agreements. During her career, Erin has managed client services and delivery for complex eDiscovery matters, including strategy advisory for document collection and processing, TAR, complex multi-tiered review workflows, and productions.