In January 2026, the US Department of Justice’s antitrust division announced its first whistleblower award. A bid-rigging scheme involving online used vehicle auction platform EBlock has resulted in a $3.3 million fine for the company. And under a new scheme, the employee who reported the scheme received $1 million.
The whistleblower payment was part of the new Antitrust Whistleblower Reward Program, or AWRP, announced by the DOJ and the US Postal Service in July 2025. The AWRP allows officials who report antitrust violations to collect between 15 and 30 percent of a government fine.
The AWRP gives companies further incentives to self-report potential antitrust wrongdoing — before any of their employees do.
“At the end of the day, it encourages compliance and increases attention to doing the right thing,” he says R. Mark McCareinsclinical professor of business law at the Kellogg School.
To further raise the stakes, companies risk losing Justice Department amnesty if a whistleblower points out potential antitrust violations, even if the company itself reports minutes after the employee reporter.
“If he’s the second one to report for five minutes, he might not get amnesty,” McCareins says.
So how can companies deal with antitrust compliance in an era of huge rewards for whistleblowers who beat corporate self-reporters? Here, McCareins offers several recommendations.
Cultivate a culture of compliance
With employees more motivated than ever to report concerns externally, McCareins says it’s never been more critical to create a strong culture of compliance within a company.
A healthy compliance culture allows employees to feel comfortable reporting potential antitrust violations internally, knowing that they will not be penalized and that management will promptly investigate and respond to them.
“I would rather, as an employer, have that situation than have the government hear it before I do it,” McCareins says.
Establishing this culture of compliance starts with senior management, McCareins says.
The best way for business leaders to raise compliance concerns, he says, is “if from the C-suite down, they say, ‘This is very important to us. Revenue is important, but compliance is also important, and they establish a global policy that we will commit resources and take action.”
A culture of compliance should also be part of every employee’s job description, according to McCareins. One metric in performance reviews could be whether the employee has taken online antitrust compliance training courses or attended company-sponsored antitrust compliance webinars.
If the focus on antitrust compliance within a company is insufficient, on the other hand, then the AWRP increases the chances that employees will take matters into their own hands and try to reap the monetary benefits of reporting potential misconduct to antitrust authorities, he says.
“Buy-in from all levels of the organization is mandatory for any antitrust compliance program to be successful,” says McCareins.
Conduct rigorous risk assessments
Beyond culture, companies should review their existing antitrust compliance programs before renewing any compliance policy, according to McCareins.
Such a review should begin by conducting an effective risk assessment to identify areas where antitrust compliance disasters are most likely. The most at-risk areas may include outside sales forces, trade association participants, and joint ventures.
Companies can then adjust their antitrust programs to match the results of the risk assessment.
“Putting a microscope on understanding and acceptance of existing compliance programs is a good place to start,” says McCareins.
Implement regular, multi-level training
To reinforce the importance of antitrust compliance—and clarify internal employee reporting processes—antitrust compliance must be an ongoing priority, not a one-time on-boarding task.
A fruitful training can start with a preliminary test. McCareins recalls working with one company in particular where the CEO demanded that the pre-test be so difficult that almost everyone on their team would run.
“They’re high achievers and if they think they’re going to pass, they’re not going to pay attention,” McCareins recalled the executive saying. “So I would like to send a very strong message to the beginning that they really don’t know what they need to know yet.”
After the training, the company conducted a test to determine which employees might need additional training — or perhaps face more serious consequences, given the severity of the antitrust violations.
“A slip by a vendor could have a significant effect on the company,” says McCareins. “So it’s critical to make sure everyone gets it right.”
Beyond this initial in-person training, online refreshers every few months can help keep antitrust compliance top of mind. In addition, managers should receive training on what to do if they hear about potential antitrust violations through their subordinates, whether at the water cooler or over dinner with a client, McCareins says.
“Now, ultimately, the answer might be, ‘Don’t do too much,'” he says. “Talk to lawyers.” But this second level of education empowers people to take action.”
If, for example, an employee is at a trade association meeting and a rival has the idea of conspiring to exclude a buyer or fix prices, a well-executed compliance program will help prevent this discussion in the first place.
“It’s at this level, where people who are typically exposed to these types of communications from competitors, where you want your team to be well-trained to say, ‘No, we don’t do that,’ and know what the next steps are to report it,” McCareins says.
Prioritize internal reporting
Given the new DOJ regulations, reporting as soon as possible is essential. In-house counsel and human resources representatives in organizations should be prepared and empowered to follow up on potential antitrust violations once they are reported by employees, according to McCareins.
This mechanism should be ready to be activated when there is even a hint of ambivalence. For example, imagine a situation where a staff member attending a required antitrust compliance course presents what they describe as a “real world” situation that, if true, could create an antitrust problem. Taking this observation seriously and investigating the claim before the employee has a chance to complain is very important.
When investigating any matter, the reported employee must be assured that their concerns are heard and addressed promptly.
“A point of contact should be established with the person making the allegation so that the reporter feels ‘seen and valued’ and involved in the investigative process,” says McCareins.
Do your due diligence on acquisitions
Companies considering acquisitions should also investigate any potential exposure to antitrust non-compliance in the companies they are considering acquiring. After all, the DOJ’s first AWRP award involved conduct that allegedly began at a company that acquired EBlock—and that didn’t let EBlock off the hook.
Closing a deal without addressing any fears employees may have about potential antitrust violations could lead them to call the authorities and launch a federal investigation.
Companies should design a standard for documenting potential legal risks uncovered by the due diligence process, according to McCareins. Along with antitrust risk, issues to report could include environmental liabilities as well as pension and benefits issues.
This process may include assigning a due diligence coordinator to gather and identify concerns before passing them on to a subject matter expert, who could collect the relevant documents and interview the employees involved.
Once the potential issue has been fully investigated, the negotiating team could be briefed on the outcome to determine what steps, if any, should be taken to insulate the acquiring company from any assumed legal liabilities.
“Even in our evolving regulatory environment,” says McCareins, “agreements between competing companies to fix prices or allocate customers will remain an active area of enforcement. It’s still a hot topic.”
