As Amazon faces mounting antitrust scrutiny from the FTC, state regulators, and private plaintiffs, the company’s legal battles are emerging as some of the most significant and closely watched antitrust cases in recent years. We spoke with DOAR’s Raymond McLeod, a nationally recognized trial consultant who has worked on a range of high-stakes matters, including major antitrust and merger cases, about the growing complexity of these disputes, how trial strategy evolves in large-scale litigation, and the unique challenges companies face when business practices, reputation, and public scrutiny converge in the courtroom.
Q: Amazon is facing several major antitrust matters simultaneously, including the FTC monopolization case and related state and private actions. From a defense-side trial perspective, what stands out about this current wave of enforcement?
What stands out to me is the sheer scale and complexity of these cases. They are no longer isolated disputes. In many situations, companies are defending federal enforcement actions, state lawsuits, and private litigation all at the same time, often over several years and across multiple jurisdictions.
From a trial consulting perspective, one of the biggest challenges is maintaining a consistent and credible narrative across all proceedings while managing enormous volumes of evidence, business records, and the overall trial calendar.
I’ve worked on several major antitrust and merger matters over the years, and one thing that becomes very clear is that these cases quickly evolve beyond purely legal disputes. They often carry significant business, operational, and reputational implications for the companies involved. In cases involving companies as prominent as Amazon, the litigation also tends to unfold under intense public, regulatory, and industry scrutiny. Trial teams are not simply preparing for what happens in the courtroom. They are operating in an environment where filings, rulings, testimony, and even internal business communications can quickly become part of a much broader public and media conversation.
Q: You’ve worked on several high-stakes antitrust and merger matters involving complex competitive issues. What are the biggest challenges in presenting those kinds of cases clearly and persuasively at trial?
One of the biggest challenges in antitrust litigation is simplifying extremely complex issues without losing the substance behind them. These cases often involve highly technical economic concepts, industry-specific terminology, enormous amounts of market data, and competing expert analyses. In antitrust merger cases, courts are often asked to evaluate highly technical testimony regarding market definition, pricing dynamics, vertical integration, efficiencies, and the likely future competitive impact of a proposed transaction, often over the course of several weeks.
That is where storytelling and presentation strategy become essential. No matter how technical the case may be, the court still needs a clear and understandable explanation of how the market actually functions, what the company does, and why the conduct or transaction at issue makes sense for the market in the real world.
I saw this firsthand in matters like the Booz Allen / EverWatch merger challenge, the JetBlue / Spirit merger litigation, and competition cases such as Viamedia v. Comcast, where the courts were being asked to evaluate highly technical issues involving market definition, customer choice, competitive alternatives, pricing dynamics, market power, and the likely future impact of the conduct or proposed transactions. In cases like these, one of the biggest challenges is helping the court cut through the complexity and stay focused on the core economic and business realities driving the dispute.
I’ve found that judges and jurors generally respond best when complicated concepts are grounded in practical, real-world explanations rather than abstract economic theory. That also puts a tremendous amount of importance on visual presentation. Demonstratives, evidence organization and presentation, and the application of these principles within the testimony of fact and expert witnesses, all become critical tools in helping the court absorb large amounts of information over long proceedings.
The most effective trial teams are usually the ones that remain disciplined. They understand that not every document or data point needs to be shown. The focus has to remain on presenting a clear, organized, and persuasive case that the court and jurors can follow from beginning to end.
Q: The FTC’s case against Amazon is scheduled as a bench trial. How does preparing for a judge differ from preparing for a jury in a complex antitrust matter?
A bench trial changes the dynamic in some important ways, particularly in antitrust matters where the issues can become highly technical.
In front of a judge, there is often more room for detailed exploration of economic models, market structure, industry dynamics, and expert testimony over the course of the proceeding. Bench trials in these cases can become highly educational processes in which the court is asked to work through competing economic frameworks and very sophisticated business issues.
That said, the core principles of effective trial presentation do not really change because, at the end of the day, judges are people too. Trial teams still need to present a case that is organized, credible, and easy to follow. In complex antitrust matters involving enormous amounts of evidence and technical testimony, clarity and presentation remain just as important in a bench trial as they are before a jury.
Expert witnesses also tend to play an even larger role in bench trials, particularly when the court is evaluating competing economic analyses or highly technical industry issues. How effectively those experts communicate complicated concepts can significantly shape how the case is ultimately understood and decided by the court.
In the Tempur Sealy / Mattress Firm merger case, for example, we spent an enormous amount of time developing visuals that helped explain both the deficiencies in the existing market and the pro-competitive benefits of the proposed merger. It was incredibly rewarding to later read the Court’s opinion and see that many of those demonstratives were specifically referenced and incorporated into the Court’s analysis.
Q: Many of today’s antitrust cases involve enormous volumes of internal communications, market data, and platform-related evidence. How has the presentation of evidence evolved in these large-scale cases?
The scale of evidence in recent antitrust litigation has increased dramatically over the years. Today’s cases often involve years of emails, internal messaging platforms, executive presentations, forecasting models, pricing data, and business records collected across multiple business units and custodians.
Modern trial presentation is no longer simply about displaying evidence. It is about sequencing information in a way that helps the court absorb complicated records incrementally and coherently over time. That is where technology and visual strategy play a much larger role than they once did. It is not just having access to the applications; it is utilizing them in the correct manner. In many of these cases, the most persuasive presentations are often the simplest and most organized ones.
Q: In antitrust merger cases, the focus is often on the likely future competitive impact of a proposed transaction, while the FTC’s case against Amazon centers more on alleged existing market power and business conduct. Does that distinction change how these matters are approached at trial?
Absolutely. The nature of the allegations can significantly shape how these cases are approached and presented at trial.
Merger cases are often predictive in nature. The court is evaluating what may happen in the future if a transaction proceeds and whether the competitive landscape could change over time. That generally creates a heavy emphasis on economists, forecasting models, market projections, and competing views about future industry conditions. This was particularly evident in merger matters like the JetBlue / Spirit, Tapestry / Capri, and Edwards Life Sciences / JenaValve cases, where much of the litigation focused on how the relevant markets could evolve in the future and whether the proposed transactions would ultimately increase or reduce competition over time.
Conduct cases are different because they focus much more heavily on existing business practices and a retrospective examination of company behavior. In these matters, internal communications, operational decisions, and executive testimony often become central pieces of the case because regulators and plaintiffs are attempting to frame ordinary business decisions as evidence of broader anticompetitive conduct.
Those kinds of cases can also create broader reputational considerations because the company’s day-to-day business practices are under direct scrutiny. So, the defense strategy has to account not only for the legal arguments being made in court, but also for how the company’s actions and decision-making will be perceived over the course of a highly visible proceeding.
Q: Looking broadly at the current antitrust environment, what should corporate defendants and their counsel expect to see?
I think companies should expect continued scrutiny, particularly in industries that are already highly visible or concentrated, including technology, healthcare, financial services, and other major markets.
These cases are becoming increasingly resource-intensive and operationally complex. The volume of evidence, the number of stakeholders involved, and the amount of coordination required across legal teams, business leaders, experts, consultants, and communications professionals can be overwhelming.
In large antitrust cases, the themes established early in the litigation often carry through the entire proceeding, which is why in-house counsel and trial teams need to begin with the end in mind. Companies such as Amazon need a clear, disciplined strategy from the outset, not only for how the case will ultimately be presented in court, but also for how the broader issues surrounding the case may be perceived externally.
These matters are no longer viewed solely from a legal perspective. They frequently unfold alongside political attention, industry reaction, shareholder concerns, and broader public debates about market power and corporate scale. As a result, corporate defendants increasingly need to balance legal, business, and reputational considerations simultaneously throughout the life of the case.
