In April 2025, a federal jury delivered a landmark verdict in United States v. Lopez, marking the first successful criminal jury conviction for wage-fixing under the Sherman Act. The case represents a turning point in U.S. antitrust enforcement and signals that labor market collusion is no longer a theoretical enforcement priority—it is a prosecutable crime with real consequences.
Background of the Case
The defendant, Eduardo “Eddie” Lopez, was the owner and executive of a home healthcare staffing company operating in the Las Vegas area. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that from 2016 to 2019, Lopez conspired with competing home health agencies to fix and suppress wages for registered nurses and licensed practical nurses.
According to prosecutors, the competing agencies agreed to coordinate wage rates rather than compete for workers, depriving nurses of the benefits of a competitive labor market. This conduct, the government argued, constituted a “naked” wage-fixing agreement, which the DOJ treats as per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
In addition to the antitrust charge, Lopez was also accused of wire fraud for failing to disclose the ongoing criminal antitrust investigation during the sale of his company for more than $10 million.
The Verdict
After trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the jury found Lopez guilty on all counts, including:
Conspiracy to fix wages (Sherman Act §1)
Wire fraud related to concealment of the DOJ investigation
This verdict is historically significant. While the DOJ announced in 2016 that it would pursue criminal enforcement against wage-fixing and no-poach agreements, earlier cases had failed at trial, resulting in acquittals or dismissals. Lopez is the DOJ’s first clear courtroom win in this area.
Why This Case Matters
1. Labor Markets Are Antitrust Markets
The case reinforces that antitrust law applies fully to labor markets, not just to prices paid by consumers. Agreements among employers to limit wages are treated the same as agreements among sellers to fix prices.
2. Criminal Risk Is Real
For years, many employers viewed wage coordination as a civil compliance issue at most. Lopez demonstrates that such conduct can lead to criminal convictions, prison exposure, and substantial fines.
3. DOJ Strategy Is Vindicated
The verdict validates the DOJ Antitrust Division’s long-standing position that naked wage-fixing agreements are per se criminal violations, even when framed as informal understandings or “industry norms.”
Compliance Implications for Employers
The case carries clear lessons for employers, staffing firms, and HR professionals:
Do not discuss wages, salary ranges, or compensation strategies with competitors
Avoid informal agreements or “gentlemen’s understandings” regarding pay
Ensure HR and management teams receive antitrust training
Conduct due diligence during mergers or acquisitions to uncover antitrust risks
Even well-intentioned discussions can cross legal lines if they limit independent decision-making on employee compensation.
Looking Ahead
United States v. Lopez is likely to embolden the DOJ to bring more criminal labor-market antitrust cases, particularly in industries where employees are highly mobile and wages are competitive. It also serves as a warning: wage-fixing is no longer an emerging theory—it is settled criminal enforcement policy.
For employers, the message is simple but urgent: compete for workers, or face the consequences.
