Antitrust settlement rules shift — but text unavailable to assess impact
H.R. 10941 — 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. · Filed by Jamie Raskin (D-MD) · 9 cosponsors · Introduced Oct 29, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill would amend the Clayton Act to require courts to consider voluntary dismissals when reviewing proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases, and to clarify what 'public interest' means in that context. Without the full text, the precise scope and effect cannot be determined, but the bill appears to address how courts evaluate settlements in antitrust enforcement.
Why we flagged it
The bill modifies Clayton Act procedures governing how courts review antitrust consent judgments. It is a technical amendment to antitrust litigation process, not a substantive change to antitrust law itself.
What the text implies
- The phrase 'proposed voluntary dismissals' may create a pathway for defendants to withdraw antitrust cases before settlement, potentially weakening enforcement outcomes if courts must weigh such withdrawals favorably.
- Clarifying 'public interest' in consent judgments could either strengthen or weaken enforcement depending on the definition adopted — the text is essential to assess impact.
- Nine cosponsors suggest bipartisan interest, but without text it is unclear whether this reflects genuine consensus or reflects industry-backed procedural changes.
Who it affects
The bill's direction cannot be reliably assessed without the full text. If it tightens judicial scrutiny of antitrust settlements, consumers may benefit from stronger enforcement; if it loosens scrutiny or creates safe harbors for dismissals, it may weaken antitrust protection. The 'public interest' clarification could cut either way.
Named in the bill
Clayton Act, House Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. courts, antitrust defendants
Where it stands
9 cosponsors: 9 Democrats.
- Oct 29, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Oct 29, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Oct 31, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,778 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-31.
“Antitrust settlement rules shift — but text unavailable to assess impact” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr10941 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.