Letter From the Editors
Trade Association and Licensing Board Restrictions: Antitrust Agencies' Renewed Interest
In the last quarter of 2025, the U.S. antitrust agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), renewed their focus on the role that professional associations and licensing boards can play in potentially restricting competition in their industries by controlling licensing and accreditation standards. The DOJ and FTC actions provide a clear reminder that professional and trade associations, and their members, must be mindful of the antitrust laws when they are issuing standards and other programs to ensure the quality of providers in their industries .
I. Background
The antitrust agencies have long had an interest in ensuring restrictions imposed by trade associations and licensing boards are not anticompetitive. In one of the FTC's first enforcement actions, it challenged an association of flag manufacturers that was allegedly facilitating coordination among its members to raise the prices of American flags.1 Over 30 years ago, the DOJ brought a complaint against the American Bar Association (ABA) for allegedly violating the Sherman Act by limiting competition in the law school labor market by setting salary standards for law schools and by using its accreditation program to harm competition between law schools.2 The ABA settled the claims with DOJ, agreeing to stop sharing law school salary information or prohibiting law schools from accepting post-Juris Doctor program students, offering transfer credits, or being for-profit.3 The ABA also agreed to revise certain standards and implement an antitrust compliance program.4
Antitrust agency focus on trade associations and licensing boards continued over the years. In 1996, FTC Bureau of Competition Director Bill Baer wrote to the Washington House of Representatives, warning that increasing licensing requirements for prospective Certified Public Accountants (CPA) could harm competition for CPA services and increase the costs of entry.5 In 2011, the FTC found that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners violated antitrust laws by enforcing rules that only licensed dentists could perform teeth whitening services.6 And in 2014, the FTC finalized consent agreements to resolve competitive concerns with the activities of two trade associations, one representing companies and individuals that provide legal support services in California and the other representing music teachers, that allegedly limited competition among their members.7
Continuing this interest, during the first Trump administration, former Acting Chairman Ohlhausen's Economic Liberty Taskforce reviewed unnecessary and anticompetitive occupational licensing requirements.8 The taskforce found that "state-by-state occupational licensing can pose significant hurdles for individuals who are licensed in one state, but want to market their services across state lines or move to another state."9 In particular, military spouses are harmed by these requirements because they frequently move.10 The task force recommended several initiatives to increase license portability, including instituting model laws and consistent licensure requirements across states, expanding temporary licensing, and expediting licensing.11 The task force concluded that increased portability of licenses enhances competition.12
The Biden administration also focused on removing employment restrictions. However, it was more focused on broadly eliminating non-compete agreements rather than occupational licensing restrictions. (Our colleagues discussed this focus in depth in an April 2024 Advisory.) While the second Trump administration elected to abandon the Biden administration's broad non-compete ban, it has renewed focus on association licensing and accreditation standards that may harm competition.
II. Recent Agency Actions Focused on Association Licensing and Accreditation
On December 1, 2025, the FTC sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding a proposed amendment to the rules governing admission to the Texas Bar.13 The proposed amendment "would eliminate the current rule's delegation of authority to the" ABA to determine rules for admission to the bar, including the requirement that an applicant for admission attend an ABA-accredited law school.14 The letter asserted that the ABA has a monopoly over accreditation of law schools and that the amendment would increase competition among law schools and lawyers.15 The letter further suggested the ABA's monopoly is partially responsible for the high costs of law school and that modifications to admission requirements, such as the proposed amendment in Texas, are important to weaken the ABA's monopoly power.16 On January 6, 2026, the Texas Supreme Court ended ABA oversight of Texas Bar admission requirements.17
Two weeks later, on December 15, 2025, the DOJ Antitrust Division filed a statement of interest in Lincoln Memorial University v. Am. Veterinary Medical Ass'n.18 Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) accreditation standards...
