BCLP logo

David B. Schwartz

David B. Schwartz

Partner

Washington

T: +1 202 508 6086

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

David B. Schwartz is a Partner in the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group. As a former Lead Investigative Attorney at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), David has significant experience in addressing the most complex antitrust and competition legal challenges.

David has made significant contributions to the field of antitrust law and litigation. He previously led high-profile FTC investigations from document discovery through investigational hearings and Commission processes— notably in the landmark case FTC et al. v. Amazon, where he led the FTC's investigation that resulted in filing the largest antitrust lawsuit in the FTC's history. During this time David worked daily with the FTC's top political and staff leadership.

David also has significant experience in the healthcare sector, having worked extensively on enforcement issues related to pharmaceutical pricing, e-provider consolidation, private equity provider acquisitions and Medicare Modernization Act patent settlements. He served in the FTC’s Healthcare Division of the Bureau of Competition from 2015-2022, and again in 2024. During his tenure, David led teams in important FTC wins in the Actavis reverse settlement payment litigation and the Surescripts exclusionary conduct case. David also has considerable experience with the agency's interest in private equity consolidation, both during his time as an Attorney Advisor for Commissioner Rohit Chopra and when arguing on behalf of the FTC in FTC v. US Anesthesia Partners.

Prior to joining the FTC, David was an associate at Quinn Emanuel. He was also a law clerk to the Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

David is widely recognized in the fields of healthcare, technology, and FTC enforcement. He has published articles in Bloomberg and Law360, has appeared on the ABA Antitrust Section’s Our Curious Amalgam Podcast, and has been quoted in The New York Times, Reuters, and the Guardian.

David has extensive experience responding to third-party subpoenas. In particular, he can advise you on:

  • What level of confidentiality to choose in a protective order?
  • Will you be successful in adding further layers of confidentiality?
  • How can you limit the access of parties’ employees to your documents?
  • Will you be able to limit outside counsel’s access to your documents?
  • Is complete inaccessibility by parties’ employees to your documents achievable?
  • How to make sure you know who exactly will see your documents?
  • Will you know if the government wants to use your documents outside of the current lawsuit?
  • How can you obtain notice from the parties if your documents are being used publicly?
  • What will happen to your documents at the end of a lawsuit?

For more information, visit our Antitrust page.

 

Admissions

  • District of Columbia, 2024
  • New York, 2011

Education

  • Stanford Law School, J.D., with distinction, 2009
  • Middlebury College, B.A., magna cum laude, 2004

Related Capabilities

  • Antitrust & Competition

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Class Actions & Mass Torts

  • Appellate

  • Healthcare & Life Sciences

  • Marketing & Advertising

  • State Attorneys General Practice

Resources

Speaking Engagements

Speaker, BCLP Webinar, “What the FTC’s final rule on consumer reviews and testimonials means for your business” (Nov. 2024)

Speaker, UOKiK Workshop, "Market studies, Monitoring & Digital Markets" (Warsaw, Poland, Nov. 2023)

Speaker, International Competition Network Unilateral Conduct Workshop (Mexico City, Mexico, Nov. 2019)

Moderator, American Bar Association Antitrust Section, "Two-Sided Markets in Modern Antitrust: Beyond Ohio v. American Express" (Feb. 2018)

Related Insights

View All Related InsightsIcon: arrow

Insights
Feb 04, 2026

FTC Chairman Issues Warning Letters Relating to Diversity Initiatives to Law Firms Which Have Implications to Corporate Employers as Well

Summary: On Friday, January 30, 2026, Andrew Ferguson, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sent warning letters to over 40 law firms about their purported involvement in the Mansfield Certification program, a diversity initiative pursuant to which law firms commit to considering diverse applicant pools. The warning letters characterize the Mansfield Certification program as an illegal collusion scheme, often referred to as a “hub and spoke” cartel. The current administration has used this type of “cartel” claim frequently. Several of us predicted last year (in the context of U.S. antitrust challenges to environmental sustainability initiatives) that the cartel type claims would be increasingly invoked. But significant challenges exist between these warning letters and legal action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Clients, whether law firms or other entities that participate in the Mansfield Certification program, should review their hiring practices to ensure that they are making independent hiring decisions, even if those actions parallel other firms’ decisions.
Insights
Jan 30, 2026

Seal the Valve, But Not the Deal: Court Blocks Edwards Lifesciences’ Pre Commercial Merger

A recent federal district court decision in FTC v. Edwards Lifesciences adds another win to U.S. enforcers’ efforts to apply traditional antitrust principles to mergers involving early‑stage or pre‑commercial products. In granting the FTC a preliminary injunction blocking Edwards’ acquisition of JenaValve, the court endorsed an expansive “pre‑commercial innovation market” theory—accepting that the two companies were actively competing not in a traditional commercial market, but in the research, development, and anticipated commercialization of next‑generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR‑AR) devices.[1] Although no TAVR‑AR device is yet FDA‑approved for commercial sale in the United States, the court found that the companies’ efforts to progress through FDA trials constituted meaningful competitive interaction.[2] Relying on the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the ruling underscores the growing institutional acceptance of research and development-based theories of harm.  For clients, Edwards Lifesciences represents a helpful reminder of the import of antitrust counsel advising on potential transactions and reviewing deal terms as early as possible in the process, even when there is no present commercial competition between an acquirer and a target, so long as there is specific evidence of competition in innovation or R&D.  
Insights
Dec 16, 2025

Rent Now, Pay Later? FTC Warns Property Management Software Companies to Make Sure Their Advertised Prices Are Accurate

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued warning letters to thirteen property management software providers notifying them that their pricing practices may violate consumer protection and antitrust laws. The warning letters reflect a larger movement towards enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws against all types of pricing algorithm providers and users. Clients should consider reviewing their pricing programs with antitrust and consumer protection counsel to ensure compliance amidst growing enforcement scrutiny.
Insights
Oct 24, 2025

Is the Price Right? New York and California Escalate Legal Pressure on Pricing Algorithms

In recent weeks, there have been significant developments in the legal landscape of pricing and pricing algorithm laws in New York and California. In light of the quickly changing law on pricing, clients should be thinking about reviewing their pricing programs with antitrust counsel and taking other practical steps to decrease the likelihood that these programs might be found to violate state antitrust laws. 
Insights
Sep 30, 2025

Blocking Their Own Shot: FTC’s Recent Arguments Could Impact If and How FTC Investigations Are Conducted

In Media Matters v. Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suggested that issues surrounding the scope, validity, and enforceability of a civil investigative demand (CID) should be addressed during an enforcement action. This position could have significant implications for the FTC’s ability to conduct investigations due to the public nature of enforcement actions, limited FTC resources, and the potential for an increased number of challenges to the FTC’s authority to start investigations in the first place.

Related Insights

Insights
Feb 04, 2026
FTC Chairman Issues Warning Letters Relating to Diversity Initiatives to Law Firms Which Have Implications to Corporate Employers as Well
Summary: On Friday, January 30, 2026, Andrew Ferguson, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sent warning letters to over 40 law firms about their purported involvement in the Mansfield Certification program, a diversity initiative pursuant to which law firms commit to considering diverse applicant pools. The warning letters characterize the Mansfield Certification program as an illegal collusion scheme, often referred to as a “hub and spoke” cartel. The current administration has used this type of “cartel” claim frequently. Several of us predicted last year (in the context of U.S. antitrust challenges to environmental sustainability initiatives) that the cartel type claims would be increasingly invoked. But significant challenges exist between these warning letters and legal action sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Clients, whether law firms or other entities that participate in the Mansfield Certification program, should review their hiring practices to ensure that they are making independent hiring decisions, even if those actions parallel other firms’ decisions.
Insights
Jan 30, 2026
Seal the Valve, But Not the Deal: Court Blocks Edwards Lifesciences’ Pre Commercial Merger
A recent federal district court decision in FTC v. Edwards Lifesciences adds another win to U.S. enforcers’ efforts to apply traditional antitrust principles to mergers involving early‑stage or pre‑commercial products. In granting the FTC a preliminary injunction blocking Edwards’ acquisition of JenaValve, the court endorsed an expansive “pre‑commercial innovation market” theory—accepting that the two companies were actively competing not in a traditional commercial market, but in the research, development, and anticipated commercialization of next‑generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR‑AR) devices.[1] Although no TAVR‑AR device is yet FDA‑approved for commercial sale in the United States, the court found that the companies’ efforts to progress through FDA trials constituted meaningful competitive interaction.[2] Relying on the 2023 Merger Guidelines, the ruling underscores the growing institutional acceptance of research and development-based theories of harm.  For clients, Edwards Lifesciences represents a helpful reminder of the import of antitrust counsel advising on potential transactions and reviewing deal terms as early as possible in the process, even when there is no present commercial competition between an acquirer and a target, so long as there is specific evidence of competition in innovation or R&D.  
Insights
Jan 15, 2026
All A-Board? Not so Fast: Private Equity and Family Offices Should Take Note of New Thresholds for Clayton Act Prohibition on Interlocking Directorates
Insights
Jan 06, 2026
Early Reviews Are In: FTC Flags Potential Violations of Consumer Reviews Rule
Insights
Dec 16, 2025
Rent Now, Pay Later? FTC Warns Property Management Software Companies to Make Sure Their Advertised Prices Are Accurate
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued warning letters to thirteen property management software providers notifying them that their pricing practices may violate consumer protection and antitrust laws. The warning letters reflect a larger movement towards enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws against all types of pricing algorithm providers and users. Clients should consider reviewing their pricing programs with antitrust and consumer protection counsel to ensure compliance amidst growing enforcement scrutiny.
Insights
Oct 24, 2025
Is the Price Right? New York and California Escalate Legal Pressure on Pricing Algorithms
In recent weeks, there have been significant developments in the legal landscape of pricing and pricing algorithm laws in New York and California. In light of the quickly changing law on pricing, clients should be thinking about reviewing their pricing programs with antitrust counsel and taking other practical steps to decrease the likelihood that these programs might be found to violate state antitrust laws. 
Insights
Sep 30, 2025
Blocking Their Own Shot: FTC’s Recent Arguments Could Impact If and How FTC Investigations Are Conducted
In Media Matters v. Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suggested that issues surrounding the scope, validity, and enforceability of a civil investigative demand (CID) should be addressed during an enforcement action. This position could have significant implications for the FTC’s ability to conduct investigations due to the public nature of enforcement actions, limited FTC resources, and the potential for an increased number of challenges to the FTC’s authority to start investigations in the first place.
Insights
Sep 11, 2025
The FTC Non-Compete Rule Is Officially Rescinded - What Employers Need To Know
Insights
Jul 14, 2025
Future of Technology Regulation - Jurisdictional comparisons and trends for now and beyond