GCR Antitrust Awards 2026: Affiliate Catherine Tucker and Analysis Group Competition Work Nominated Across Several Categories

February 3, 2026

Analysis Group is pleased to share that academic affiliate Catherine Tucker has been selected as a nominee for Economist of the Year by Global Competition Review in connection with the 2026 GCR Awards, which recognize “creative, strategic, and innovative” competition work in 2025. In addition, Analysis Group provided economic analyses for five competition matters that have been nominated for awards in various categories, including Matter of the Year.

Congratulations to Professor Tucker, Analysis Group’s affiliates and clients, and to all the GCR Award nominees. The following were among the nominees selected for online voting, which is open until February 9:*

“Economist of the year”: Catherine Tucker (Analysis Group)

Professor Tucker is an industrial organization economist whose expertise in the competition dynamics of digital platforms and advertising-supported business models was exemplified in her recent testimony on behalf of Meta in two high-profile antitrust matters. In Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia relied on Professor Tucker’s opinion that the success of Meta’s advertising business resulted from innovation in ad quality rather than an exercise of market power in a ruling that gave Meta a complete victory. In Maximilian Klein, et al., v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (users), Professor Tucker testified at deposition on both class certification and merits issues, rebutting the plaintiffs’ expert’s assumption that Meta would compensate Facebook users for using the platform and opining that the expert could not reliably show class-wide harm using common methods. Judge James Donato denied certification of the class of Facebook users and granted summary judgment in favor of Meta, citing Professor Tucker’s reports in his opinions.

“Matter of the year” and “Behavioural matter of the year – Americas”: FTC v. Meta

In a landmark antitrust matter, Meta (then known as Facebook) successfully defended itself against claims by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it held a monopoly in the market for personal social networking (PSN) and that it maintained its dominant position by purchasing Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 to eliminate competition in the PSN market, in violation of the Sherman Act.

An Analysis Group team led by Managing Principal Aaron Yeater and Vice Presidents Hitesh Makhija and David Toniatti was retained on behalf of Meta and supported Catherine Tucker, who testified at deposition and trial. Professor Tucker opined that the success of Meta’s advertising business was due to innovation in ad quality rather than to an exercise of market power. Judge Boasberg determined that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were not anticompetitive, giving Meta a complete victory. Judge Boasberg relied heavily on Professor Tucker’s trial testimony to support his finding that Meta’s advertising strategy was not evidence of anticompetitive conduct but, rather, of an improvement in advertising features and an increase in ad quality, setting a precedent for the evaluation of antitrust harm in markets with so-called “zero-price” products.

“Behavioural matter of the year – Europe”: European Commission RPM probe into luxury fashion companies

In this matter, the European Commission (EC) opened an investigation into Italian luxury fashion brand Guccio Gucci SpA, along with two other luxury fashion companies, for allegedly interfering with independent multi-brand retailers’ ability to set their own prices for Gucci products in violation of EU competition rules. Gucci was accused of engaging in resale price maintenance (RPM) practices that allegedly included restricting retail prices, maximum discounts, and online sales for Gucci products such as apparel, handbags, and leather goods.

Analysis Group was retained on behalf of Gucci to provide economic consultation in connection with the EC’s investigation. Managing Principal Antoine Chapsal and Principal Emmanuel Frot conducted a market study of the luxury industry and on the information conveyed by prices in this sector as well as a theoretical model of RPM in the luxury industry. Gucci cooperated with the EC under the antitrust cooperation procedures, with the EC noting that Gucci provided “evidence with significant added value” early in the investigation. Gucci’s cooperation resulted in a 50% fine reduction.

“Litigation of the year – Cartel defence”: Banks win dismissal of LIBOR manipulation in US class action

In a high-profile and long-running antitrust multidistrict litigation (MDL), a group of plaintiffs accused several major banks of engaging in a horizonal price-fixing conspiracy to suppress the US Dollar London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR), an interest-rate benchmark. The plaintiffs – a certified class of investors who purchased LIBOR-based financial instruments and numerous opt-out plaintiffs – claimed that the defendants conspired to suppress LIBOR, resulting in financial harm, including through lower interest rates on plaintiffs’ investments.

Analysis Group was retained on behalf of the defendants; a team led by Managing Principals Michael Beauregard and Marissa Ginn supported academic affiliate Professor R. Glenn Hubbard, who analyzed class certification issues and rebutted the plaintiffs’ experts’ calculation of what LIBOR would have been in a “but-for” world without the alleged suppression. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected all the plaintiffs’ claims, excluded the testimony of some of the plaintiffs’ experts, and granted the defendants’ motions to decertify the class of individual plaintiff investors and for summary judgment. Repeatedly referencing Professor Hubbard’s rebuttal analysis, the judge rejected the plaintiffs’ allegations as “economically senseless.”

“Litigation of the year – Non-Cartel defence”: Maximilian Klein v. Meta Platforms

In a massive, high-profile antitrust class action, Facebook users (the proposed “user” class) claimed that Meta misrepresented its data protection and privacy practices, allowing it to attract more users, obtain and maintain market power in the alleged social networking services market, and diminish competition. The plaintiffs claimed that, but for Meta’s alleged market power, the company would have had to pay users to use Facebook.

Analysis Group was retained on behalf of Meta, and a team led by Managing Principal Aaron Yeater and Vice Presidents Ishita Rajani and Carlos Chiapa supported three experts who testified at deposition on class certification and merits issues. Catherine Tucker opined that the plaintiffs’ expert’s methodology could not reliably show antitrust injury because the expert’s novel theory that Meta would compensate users for using Facebook was unsupported by either economics or real-world business practice. Professor Yael Hochberg evaluated the plaintiffs’ claim that accounting profit margins serve as a legitimate indicator of monopoly power, and Analysis Group Managing Principal Rebecca Kirk Fair evaluated the plaintiffs’ survey evidence. Citing Professor Tucker’s submissions, Judge James Donato of the US District Court for the Northern District of California excluded the opposing expert’s opinions, which resulted in a denial of certification of the user class and summary judgment in favor of Meta.

“Litigation of the year – Non-Cartel prosecution”: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Amgen

In a groundbreaking antitrust matter, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals succeeded in challenging competitor Amgen’s practice of offering cross-product discounts, conduct that was previously investigated by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Regeneron alleged that Amgen had undercut sales for Praluent, Regeneron’s cholesterol-reducing biologic, by illegally bundling it’s competing drug, Repatha, with rebates for discounts for unrelated drugs. Regeneron argued that the bundling violated the Sherman Act by making it economically unfeasible for Regeneron to continue to sell Praluent.

Analysis Group Managing Principal Divya Mathur testified at trial on behalf of Regeneron on her assessment of damages for Amgen’s alleged anticompetitive conduct along with other experts. An Analysis Group team lead by Managing Principal Aaron Yeater and Vice President Ishita Rajani supported. A jury in the US District Court of Delaware found in Regeneron’s favor, holding that Amgen’s bundling scheme violated the Sherman Act. The jury assessed compensatory damages of $135.6 million, the exact amount calculated by Dr. Mathur in her submissions, and punitive damages of $271.2 million.

*Voting is only open to employees of law firms, economic consultancies, government agencies, universities, and competition advocacy organizations, and employees are not allowed to vote for matters in which their organization was involved. Eligible voters may cast online ballots here.