Antitrust Matters in 2026: A $8,300 Million Median Disclosed Value

Antitrust work reaches the public record rarely, and when it does it tends to be large. Sartori & Partners data show 300 antitrust matters on record in the 12 months to October 2026, and the ones with a published value have a median of $8,300 million. That median rests on a thin base: only 8.7% of the matters disclose a value at all. For anyone comparing antitrust merger review law firms, or deciding whether to build such a group, the point is scale per matter, not volume. We call this work matters rather than deals, because disputes and investigations make up 54.7% of it, and merger clearance is only part of what is left.

The median disclosed value of an antitrust matter is $8,300 million, against $315 million for corporate and M&A deals. That puts the typical disclosed antitrust matter at 26.3 times the size of the typical disclosed corporate deal. The reason is selection. Competition counsel joins a transaction when it is big enough to trigger a filing or an in-depth review, and a public value tends to surface only on the largest of those. Smaller clearances close quietly, without an announcement that names a figure.

Read the median with care. Only 8.7% of antitrust matters carry a published value, against 17.7% of corporate and M&A deals, so fewer than one in ten antitrust matters feeds the figure. It describes the disclosed top of the book, not the average mandate. A partner who brings one review of this size can make a practice's year; a partner who runs many smaller clearances will rarely appear in public figures at all. When a lateral candidate's pitch leans on deal values, ask how many of the matters were public, and judge the rest on references.

In the Sartori & Partners deal records, regulatory and antitrust reviews make up 30.7% of antitrust matters but only 0.4% of all dated deals. Across the whole market there were 207 such reviews on record in 12 months, and 44.4% of them sit in the antitrust practice; the others are recorded under different practice groups. The deal type that defines this practice barely registers in the wider deal count.

Disputes and investigations are the largest slice, at 54.7% of antitrust matters against 25.0% of all dated deals: cartel claims, class actions and agency proceedings that end up in court records. Merger work shows mostly as the review itself, not as the transaction. M&A is tagged on only 6.7% of antitrust matters, against 19.3% of all dated deals. For a firm, this means antitrust demand does not track the deal count one for one: the clearance team is staffed review by review, and the litigation side runs on its own cycle.

Technology and software is the largest client industry in antitrust, at 12.7% of matters, against 6.8% of all dated deals and 14.0% of corporate and M&A deals. Media and entertainment follows at 8.7%, against 2.0% across the market, a gap of 6.7 points. Both sectors sit where competition authorities have spent much of their attention: platform conduct, digital markets and the distribution of content.

Media weighs 4.3 times as much in antitrust as in the deal market as a whole, while technology sits close to its weight in corporate work. Each share counts matters involving the industry, so the two are read on their own and never added. A firm adding an antitrust partner should test sector depth in technology and media first, because those sectors carry both the agency scrutiny and the follow-on litigation.

Antitrust matters went from 308 to 308 between the two settled 12-month windows, so the count held flat (+0.0%). All dated deals rose 10.6% over the same windows, and corporate and M&A deals rose 9.5%. Antitrust stayed level while transactions grew, which fits a practice paced by review thresholds and enforcement agendas more than by deal flow.

The bars give the size of the recorded book each year, not a growth path, because deal records start in 2022 and earlier years are not comparable. The 2026 bar stands at 257 with two months still to come, against 315 for all of 2025. Hiring tells the same story: in the Sartori & Partners lateral records, antitrust moves came to 393 against 365, so lateral hiring held flat (+7.7%). Partner moves were steady too, at 120 against 109. Steady work and steady hiring mean there is no rush for raw capacity; firms recruit antitrust partners for sector knowledge and agency experience, not to absorb a surge.

King & Spalding heads the list of firms by recorded antitrust matters, in the 21-40 band of matters advised. The next five, from Freshfields to Bass, Berry & Sims, sit in the 11-20 band, and the list closes in the 6-10 band. With disputes at 54.7% of the record, the list holds firms that act mainly in competition litigation as well as firms known for merger clearance.

Kirkland & Ellis appears on this list and also heads the list of antitrust partner hirers, while King & Spalding ranks second among those hirers. Work and hiring overlap at a few firms, but the bands are narrow at every rank. For a firm leader, a top band of 21-40 means candidates with recorded antitrust matters sit across many platforms, and no single firm sets the market for them.

Sartori & Partners figures describe a practice that is small in count, large per matter and steady over time. The count of antitrust matters held flat (+0.0%), and the disclosed median of $8,300 million rests on the 8.7% of matters that publish a value. Three consequences follow. First, judge antitrust candidates on the reviews they have run and the agencies they have faced, not on headline values that few matters disclose. Second, build the bench around technology and media: technology alone appears in 12.7% of antitrust matters against 6.8% of all dated deals. Third, staff for both sides of the book. Regulatory reviews at 30.7% and disputes at 54.7% call for different people, and a group that only clears mergers misses most of the recorded work.