Antitrust Lawyers: AI’s Wartime Consiglieres

Why It Matters

Concentration in AI could reshape competition, spur costly litigation, and hinder innovation, making proactive antitrust oversight essential for market health.

Key Takeaways

• AI markets have high fixed costs, driving concentration.
• Private antitrust suits will move faster than regulators.
• Firms will use litigation to block rivals' AI acquisitions.
• Traditional theories like tying and essential facilities will reappear.
• Concentrated AI infrastructure makes antitrust a strategic battlefield.

Pulse Analysis

AI markets are uniquely predisposed to concentration. The sector’s massive upfront investments in compute, talent, and data create steep barriers to entry, while platform owners can bundle services and lock users into proprietary ecosystems. These dynamics mirror historical winner‑take‑all scenarios in telecom and software, where a few firms control essential infrastructure. As AI becomes the backbone of countless industries, the resulting market power amplifies the risk of anti‑competitive behavior, prompting heightened scrutiny from both private litigants and regulators.

In this environment, private antitrust actions are likely to outpace government enforcement. Unlike agencies constrained by political cycles and limited resources, private plaintiffs can file complaints swiftly, using them as tactical weapons to delay competitors’ product launches, trigger regulatory reviews, and extract favorable settlements. Such lawsuits can serve as leverage in negotiations, especially when the market is rapidly consolidating around a handful of AI platforms. The speed and flexibility of private litigation make it a potent tool for firms seeking to protect or expand market share.

The implications for policymakers are profound. Regulators must anticipate a surge in claims involving tying, exclusive dealing, and the revival of the essential facilities doctrine as companies argue that exclusive data access or integrated AI services constitute unlawful leverage. Lessons from the Microsoft antitrust case and the telecom battles suggest that early, decisive intervention can prevent entrenched monopolies. Crafting forward‑looking antitrust guidelines that address data lock‑in, algorithmic bundling, and cross‑platform integration will be crucial to preserving competition and fostering innovation in the AI era.

Antitrust Lawyers: AI’s Wartime Consiglieres

February 17, 2026 · Bona Law PC · Pat Pascarella

AI will weaponize antitrust. AI markets have high fixed costs, winner‑take‑all dynamics, platform leverage, bundling power, and data lock‑in. These dynamics predict concentration. And market concentration is an accelerant for antitrust litigation—both private and government. We saw it with IBM, Microsoft, and the telecom wars.

Private actions will move faster than government enforcers—not because they are necessarily stronger on the merits, but because they are less constrained by politics and bandwidth. A well‑timed complaint can slow a rival’s rollout, trigger regulatory scrutiny, and create settlement leverage. When markets tip quickly, the losers litigate.

In an AI arms race, companies will lobby regulators to block rivals’ acquisitions; challenge the integration of AI into dominant platforms as unlawful tying or bundling; and claim exclusive data access is anticompetitive. The theories will be familiar: monopoly leveraging, tying, exclusive dealing. Someone will revive essential facilities.

Having lived through Microsoft and telecom wars, I can say with confidence that when markets concentrate around essential infrastructure, antitrust becomes a strategic front. The venue changes; competition does not.

“Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”