Photo of Megan L. Wolf

Megan Louise Wolf is a partner in the firm's Washington, D.C. office. Megan's practice focuses on antitrust counseling, mergers and acquisitions, and criminal and civil antitrust investigations. Named as a “Rising Star” by Legal 500 and The Deal, Megan counsels and represents clients in a wide range of transactional antitrust matters, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, competitor collaborations, and issues related to compliance with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. Megan represents corporate clients and individual executives in criminal antitrust investigations, including those into procurement fraud, hiring practices, financial services, generic pharmaceuticals, and numerous other industries.

Merger consent orders have returned to the FTC, with the agency’s latest decision highlighting how the current leadership is evaluating divestiture proposals. The FTC has approved a proposed consent agreement in Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc.’s (ACT) acquisition of retail fuel outlets from Giant Eagle, Inc. that paired standard retail divestitures with a “prior notice” requirement that

Scams are the theme of the week at the FTC. The agency entered into two proposed stipulations to settle allegations about deceptive schemes targeting consumers, and issued over $2 million in refunds in relation to an alleged scam dating back to the 2008 financial crisis. These stories and more after the jump.Continue Reading FTC Updates (June 16 – 20, 2025)

“Right to Repair” laws are regulations that generally require manufacturers to give consumers and independent repair providers access to tools, parts, and information to repair certain consumer products and other equipment on fair and reasonable terms. Recently, six states—California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—have implemented their own comprehensive right to repair regulations. Click

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a sweeping new rule that would ban employers from including non-compete terms in employment agreements with virtually all of their workers – from janitors to senior executives. Describing such agreements as an “exploitative practice that suppresses wages, hampers innovation, and blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses,” the FTC’s rule deems non-compete agreements to be an “unfair method of competition” under Section 5 of the FTC Act, without regard for any business justifications or reasonableness. Potential rulemaking against non-compete clauses has been percolating for some time and has support from the White House, but the breadth of the proposed rule is nonetheless surprising.

The FTC’s push for this rule under its Section 5 authority surely will spark legal—including constitutional—challenges that could delay implementation of any final rule for months, if not years. Companies need not immediately start rescinding or avoiding reasonably tailored non-compete agreements with employees, but should take note that the FTC is not likely to sit on the sidelines and wait for a final rule to come into effect before taking further action against some employers based on the scope of their non-compete agreements.  The proposed rulemaking and the FTC’s recent enforcement actions  targeting specific companies’ use of non-compete provisions as violations of Section 5 reflect the FTC’s and DOJ’s aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement in the labor markets – including the FTC’s desire to bring enforcement actions in this area even before any final rule goes into effect. Continue Reading FTC Proposes Rule to Categorically Ban Non-Compete Agreements