draft-antitrust-compliance-training-materials

name	draft-antitrust-compliance-training-materials
task_id	antitrust-competition/draft-antitrust-compliance-training-materials
description	Drafts two separate antitrust compliance deliverables, covering the principal competition-law frameworks, providing issue-specific guidance for compliance risks identified in the source materials, and maintaining a clear distinction between per se and rule-of-reason analysis throughout.
activates_for	["planner","solver","checker"]

Skill: Antitrust Compliance Training Materials

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the assignment as a two-document package: an employee-facing compliance guide and a separate internal issues memorandum.
• Read the source set first to identify every antitrust-sensitive topic, then assign each topic to the right document: employee training content, issue memo, or both.
• Distinguish ordinary compliance training from legal analysis. The guide should teach rules and safe practices; the memo should diagnose problems, rank risk, and recommend remediation.
• If the source materials reflect a post-consent-decree environment, foreground heightened sensitivity to coordination, information exchange, and conduct restrictions, and tie the training to the obligations actually described in the record.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Producing only one usable document instead of a distinct training guide and issues memo.
• Treating antitrust as a single undifferentiated risk bucket instead of separating horizontal restraints, vertical restraints, unilateral conduct, information exchange, and merger/control issues.
• Blurring per se rules and rule-of-reason analysis, which can distort employee guidance and escalation decisions.
• Failing to translate legal doctrine into concrete employee behaviors: what not to say, what not to collect, when to leave a meeting, and when to escalate.
• Overlooking issue-specific risks disclosed in the source set, especially where a topic appears in multiple documents or through cross-referenced provisions.
• Writing an issues memo that describes concerns but does not classify severity, state consequences, and give a specific remediation path.
• Omitting practical meeting hygiene for trade association, competitor, or industry-group settings.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Sherman Act Section 1 prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade; naked horizontal price fixing, market allocation, output restriction, bid rigging, and group boycotts are treated as especially severe restraints. See Sherman Act § 1.
• Under Sherman Act § 1, per se treatment applies to certain naked restraints regardless of claimed efficiencies; rule-of-reason analysis applies where competitive effects, justifications, and less restrictive alternatives matter.
• Sherman Act Section 2 addresses monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize. See Sherman Act § 2.
• FTC Act Section 5 can reach unfair methods of competition, including conduct that may fall short of a Sherman Act violation but still raises competitive concern. See FTC Act § 5.
• Clayton Act basics cover anticompetitive effects from acquisitions, exclusive dealing, tying, and related structural restraints. See Clayton Act §§ 3, 7.
• Resale price maintenance and other vertical restraints require careful framing under the current rule-of-reason approach; avoid categorical employee shorthand that overstates legality or illegality. See Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
• Information exchanges between competitors are risky when they involve current, disaggregated, or competitively sensitive data; safer practices rely on historical, aggregated, anonymized information, ideally through neutral channels.
• Invitations to compete, industry benchmarking, and market intelligence gathering are not inherently unlawful, but the manner, frequency, specificity, and audience can convert them into antitrust risk.
• Trade association participation demands strict agenda discipline, prompt objection to risky topics, departure when necessary, and post-meeting documentation of walk-outs and escalations.

4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Start with a document map: identify each source document, its role, and which antitrust topic it bears on. Use that map to decide what belongs in the guide and what belongs in the memo.
2. For each competition-law framework, explain the rule, the usual analytical test, the employee-facing risk cues, and the practical consequence of violation.
3. For each issue identified in the source set, analyze it separately rather than collapsing distinct conduct into one generalized “compliance concern.”
4. Where the source materials present multiple actors, events, meetings, or communications, enumerate them before analysis and give each a separate treatment if the conduct or risk differs.
5. For every issue memo entry, include: the source basis, the applicable doctrine, a severity classification, the practical effect on the organization, and a concrete remediation step.
6. Translate legal standards into behavioral rules: what employees may discuss, what they must not discuss, what they may collect, what they must not collect, and when legal review is required.
7. Use examples in the guide that are general enough to teach the rule without reproducing source-specific facts or confidential wording.
8. If a source document includes a procedural obligation, tie the guide’s instructions and the memo’s recommendation to that obligation and the business role responsible for compliance.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• If the source set contains a hierarchy of agreements, policies, meeting notes, or notices, trace how a higher-level restriction or directive affects lower-level conduct instructions.
• If multiple time periods matter, distinguish historical conduct from current or prospective conduct, since antitrust risk often turns on whether information is stale, current, or forward-looking.
• If a compliance rule becomes effective on a specified trigger, milestone, or decree-related event, align the training language and the memo’s recommendation to that trigger.
• If obligations differ by audience, separate employee rules, manager duties, legal-review duties, and escalation responsibilities so the reader can see who must do what.

6. Output structure conventions

Deliverable 1 — Antitrust Compliance Training Guide

• Open with the document’s purpose, audience, and a short “when to escalate” orientation.
• Include a section on Sherman Act § 1, a section on Sherman Act § 2, a section on FTC Act § 5, and a section on Clayton Act basics.
• Include a per se versus rule-of-reason module with plain-English examples that distinguish prohibited horizontal coordination from permissible independent conduct.
• Include a module on competitive intelligence, including clear examples of acceptable research, unacceptable competitor contact, and safe handling of sensitive data.
• Include a module on meetings with competitors, trade associations, and industry groups, with agenda review, no-discussion topics, objection language, departure steps, and follow-up reporting.
• Include issue-specific modules for each antitrust risk type actually revealed in the source materials.
• Include reporting and escalation guidance: who to contact, what to document, and when to seek legal review before acting.

Deliverable 2 — Compliance Issues Memorandum

• Address the memo to the internal and external recipients identified in the source materials; if the source set names more than one audience, keep them distinct.
• Begin with a short executive summary, then an issue register organized by distinct issue type.
• For each issue, state the source basis, the controlling legal authority, the severity level on a uniform ordinal scale defined once at the top, the risk reason, the operational or regulatory consequence, and the recommended fix.
• Use a consistent severity scale such as Critical / High / Medium / Low, and apply it uniformly across all entries.
• End with a Recommended Actions section that assigns each action to the appropriate role and ties timing to a concrete milestone or relative urgency.
• Draft both documents as standalone products; do not merge the memo into the guide or leave either document as a mere outline.