The antitrust language field guide: the soft phrases that signal a cartel

Antitrust is the most expensive category of communication risk and the easiest to write by accident, because it never looks dangerous on the page. The phrases that anchor nine-figure fines read as cooperation, courtesy, or common sense. A line about not racing each other to the bottom, or finding “some kind of arrangement” on hiring, is how cartels start, and how they get proven.

This is a field guide to the language. The point is not to memorize banned words; it is to recognize the shape of a risky line, so you catch it in your own draft.

The one thing that turns a friendly line into a violation

Competition law (Article 101 TFEU in the EU, the Sherman Act in the US) targets agreements, invitations, or understandings between competitors that soften competition. Two facts matter. First, the recipient is a competitor, including a competitor for talent. Second, the line proposes, invites, or accepts coordination rather than ordinary rivalry. When both are true, the proposal itself is the exposure, whether or not prices or wages ever moved.

The five language patterns

The common thread is reciprocity with a competitor: “let’s both”, “between us”, “you do this, we’ll do that”, “return the favour.” That reciprocal frame, pointed at a rival, is the tell, even when the tone is warm and the words are soft.

What is not antitrust

Equally worth knowing, so you do not over-correct. Trying to win is fine: “beat them on price”, “sharpen our quote”, “we are the stronger choice.” Benchmarking a competitor’s public prices is fine. Coordinating with a non-competitor (a supplier, a partner, a customer) on schedules or a joint launch is fine. Discussing or training on a past cartel case (“two firms were fined for aligning rates, never do this”) is reporting, not coordinating. The trigger is always an agreement with a rival to dampen competition, never ordinary competition itself.

A two-question check before a competitor-facing email leaves

• Recipient: is this person a competitor in any market, including the market for talent?
• Line: does any sentence propose, invite, or accept coordination on price, customers, hiring, or bids, however softly?

If both point the wrong way, the safest version of the message is the one that does not go out.

Where a pre-send check fits

A pre-send check flags this language at the moment of writing, euphemisms included, and offers to remove the coordinating line before send. It is built for the well-meaning executive who thinks a quiet understanding on hiring is reasonable, not for a deliberate conspiracy hidden off-channel. It complements the archive a regulator can later subpoena by reducing how often a cartel invitation reaches it. Teams can build this into their own policy enforcement.

The takeaway

Antitrust risk is soft-spoken and ruinously expensive. Teach people the reciprocal frame with a competitor, keep the field guide near anyone who emails rivals, and check competitor-facing messages before send. The most dangerous sentence in this category is the one that sounds the most reasonable.