US antitrust shifts in human genetic technologies: FTC scrutiny of Illumina’s acquisition of Grail alters NGS market oversight and could affect spin-offs and startups.
0:00Welcome to Base by Base, the paper cast that brings genomics to you wherever you are. Thanks for listening, and don't forget to follow and rate us in your podcast app. I want you to just for a 2nd. Picture a medical breakthrough.
0:12You know, the way we see it in the movies. It's some genius in a lab coat late at night, staring at a scream. Right, and they see it. The one mutation that changes everything. It's this triumph of pure science.
0:23But here's the thing. If we're looking at the reality. I mean, here in 2026, the single biggest factor. The thing that decides if that breakthrough actually reaches a patient. It's not the scientist. It isn't the doctor either.
0:37No, it's the antitrust lawyer, the one sitting in a boardroom maybe 3000 miles away. It's the lawyer. And they're navigating this, this regulatory minefield that has just become radioactive in the last couple of years.
0:50We talk all the time about the science of genomics, but we almost never talk. about the business of genomics. And right now, you could argue that the business side is setting the pace for the science side more than any lab equipment ever could.
1:02We're seeing this uh, this fundamental tension. Competition, you know, it's supposed to drive innovation that makes companies better, faster, cheaper. That's the whole idea. That's the theory anyway. But we were seeing the dark side of that now.
1:15When competition policy gets, well, when it gets unpredictable, science just goes underground. People stop sharing data. We're sort of calling this the startup apocalypse. I want you to imagine someone with us today.
1:30Let's call her Maya. She's a brilliant founder, has a little startup, and she's developed a genetic test that's better than anything out there. A decade ago, her path would have been crystal clear. Exactly.
1:41Prove the science. Get acquired by a giant, like, roe sure alumina, and, you know, sail off into the sunset while her test helps millions. That was the playbook, the Silicon Valley dream. But today, here in 2026, that exit door is just nailed shut.
1:55The government is blocking the acquisitions. The IRS is blocking the spinoffs. And Maya is just stuck. She has this amazing test that she can't afford to scale up. And the real irony is. We're a year into a new administration that literally promised to burn red tape.
2:10Everyone was expecting massive deregulation. Right. But in this one, very specific, very high states world of genetic antitrust. The red tape hasn't been cut at all. It's been replaced with barbed wire.
2:22To help us untangle all this. We're doing a deep dive on a really critical perspective piece. It's titled Competition in Human Genetic Technologies, the current U.S. Legal Landscape. And this comes from a team at Penn State University.
2:37Abdulai Rashid, Nikole Rincon, Ethan Ryani, and Jennifer K. Wagner. Yeah, and we should be really clear here. This isn't a wet lab study with pipettes and gels. No, not at all. This is more like a survival guide for the C-suite.
2:49It's an analysis of how the Department of Justice, the FTC, and even the IRS have kind of encircled the whole biotech industry. So let's start with the big question. Why does the government suddenly care so much about who's buying whom in the genetic space?
3:02Well, the 23ME bankruptcy in 2025 was a massive, massive wake-up call. For data privacy, right? It was the catalyst. When 23 Emmy went under. The big question wasn't about their science. It was what happens to the database?
3:15All that personal data? You had the genetic codes of 1000000s of Americans just sitting on a server and suddenly it's an asset in a bankruptcy sale. The government realized that if the wrong person or, you know, a hostile actor gets their hands on that data, The implications are just catastrophic.
3:34And that gets to this idea of market power, doesn't it? It's not just about one company raising prices. No, it's bigger. If one company owns the sequencing technology and all the data that comes off it, they basically control the future map of human health.
3:47And then there's the national security angle. That's the other side of the device. We saw a whole series of executive orders in 2024 and 2025, targeting bulk sensitive personal data. So the DOJ isn't just asking if a merger is bad for consumers.
4:01They're asking if it lets our genetic data flow to countries of concern. Exactly. So our founder Maya isn't just up against economic regulators. She dealing with national security reviews. Okay, but to actually stop these deals, The regulators need a legal toolkit.
4:15They can't just say we don't like this one. No, they have to use the statutes. And we all know the big one. The Sherman Act from 1890, the granddaddy of it all. Right, section two. The anti monopoly law.
4:26But trying to apply a law written for oil barons in 1890 to, you know, 2026 bioinformatics. That seems like a bit of a stretch. It is a huge stretch, and that's why they've gotten creative. They're leaning much more on things like the Clayton Act and especially the HSR Act.
4:43The pre-merger notification rules. Yes. That one is critical because it forces companies to show their cards. You have to tell the government before you merge. But the real shift, as the paper points out, isn't the laws themselves.
4:56It's the interpretation, especially around horizontal versus vertical mergers. This is such a key point. Let's break that down because it's so important for Maya's situation. A horizontal merger is the obvious one, right?
5:08Coke buying Pepsi. Two direct competitors. In our world, that'd be like Thermo Fisher trying to buy Keegan. An easy no from the regulators. For decades, yes. It just consolidates the market, kills competition.
5:21It's an easy block for the FTC. But the new battleground is vertical mergers. A company buying a supplier or a customer in its chain. And historically, economists actually love these. They saw them as efficient.
5:36You know, a car company buys a steel mill. The cars get cheaper. That was the thinking. That was the prevailing wisdom, yes. Until alumina and grail. That single case basically tore up the old playbook for our industry.
5:47Okay, let's unpack that because it is the absolute heart of this paper. Alumina is the giant. They make the sequencing machines They dominate the market for the hardware. And Grail makes a test, a multicancer early detection, or MCED test that runs on those aluminum machines.
6:02And alumina actually spun grail off back in 2016, then tried to buy it back in 2020. A classic vertical merger on paper. Alumina is the supplier. Grail is the customer. But the FTC jumped in. And they used a legal theory called foreclosure.
6:17Foreclosure, meaning if alumina owns Grail, they'd have this huge incentive to just crush all of Grail's competitors. Precisely. If you're another little startup making a cancer test. You need aluminous machines to do your work.
6:29So you'd be buying your most important equipment from your biggest rival. And the FTC argued that alumina could just subtly squeeze you. Delay shipments, raise the price of servicing, you know, things that are really hard to prove but would kill your business.
6:43They could foreclose the market to everyone but Grail. Alumina saw this coming, though. They made what they called the open offer. They did. They put it in writing. We promise for 12 years to treat everyone the same.
6:56Same price, same service, same access. Which sounds fair. Why wasn't that enough? Because it's a nightmare to police. The FTC and the courts later on basically said these kinds of behavioral remedies are impossible to enforce.
7:09How do you prove a shipment was delayed on purpose? You can't. Or that a key software update went to Grail 2 weeks before it went to you. The government just decided it's easier to block the whole merger than to try and referee the behavior for a decade.
7:23So in June 2024, aluminum was forced to divest Grail. They had to sell it. And that sent a massive shockwave, because it effectively killed the vertical integration growth strategy for the entire industry.
7:37It was a clear signal. The government sees nascent competition, these tiny startups that might be a threat someday as sacred. And the big fish are not allowed to just swallow them anymore. Which brings us to this political paradox we're in now in 2026, which I just find fascinating.
7:53We're a year into the Trump administration. The whole platform is deregulation. There was an executive order, 148 267 in April 2025 called Reducing Regulatory Barriers. And yet, here we are. Exactly. You would have thought the FTC would back off completely.
8:09But the new chairman, Andrew Ferguson, a Trump appointee, he kept the strict 2023 merger guidelines. You didn't tear them up. It seems counterintuitive, but it makes sense if you look at the broader political shift.
8:21This isn't about left versus right on antitrust anymore. It's more like populace versus corporate. Exactly. There's a strong feeling in both parties that big tech and big bio have too much power. So even in a pro-business administration, they are surprisingly anti-monopoly when it comes to market concentration.
8:39So the populist, right, and the progressive left sort of met in the middle on this idea that one company shouldn't own everything. It's the horseshoe theory of politics playing out in real time. And if you're a CEO, that's terrifying.
8:52You can't just look at who's in the White House to predict if your deal will survive. The scrutiny is here to stay. Okay, so let's go back to Maya in her garage. She knows she can't get bought by alumina.
9:02The FTC will block it. So she thinks, okay, plan B. Right. Maybe merge with another company her size, or I have a big company spin off a division to join with hers. And that is when the IRS shows up to kill plan B.
9:13This is the part of the paper that I think will surprise a lot of people. We're so focused on the GOJ and FTC. But the Treasury Department quietly tightened the screws in January 2025. They did. On spinoffs.
9:25Normally, a company can spin off a division as a separate entity, and it's a tax free event. That's a huge incentive. But these new IRS rules. They tighten the definition of what they call a device. A device.
9:39That sounds like something from a spy movie. In tax law, it basically means a transaction that's just a trick to get money to shareholders without paying dividends tax. The IRS now wants much stricter proof that a spinoff is a real business necessity, not just a tax dodge.
9:54They added a ton of new reporting requirements, didn't they? Years of extra paperwork. So if you're on a board of directors, you see a huge risk of an audit and a good chance your tax free status gets denied, so you just, you don't do the spinoff.
10:07So the merger market is frozen. And the spinoff market is frozen. And Maya has no exit strategy less. This is the core of the problem, the venture capital logic. People might hear this and think, well, so what?
10:18Maya should just build her own company. But that takes 100s of 1000000s of dollars in capital. And VCs are not charities. They invest money to make more money. They need a liquidity event, an IPO or an acquisition, usually in 5 to 7 years.
10:31And if the FTC is blogging acquisitions and the market's too shaky for an IPO, the VCs just don't write the checks in the 1st place. It becomes what they call a kill zone. That's the term. If you're a startup in the sector where the exit path is blocked, You are in the kill zone.
10:47The capital dries up. So Maya's innovation doesn't just fail to sell. It fails to even get started. It dies in the garage. So what's the alternative? The paper suggests that maybe big companies just go back to the old model.
10:59In-house R&D. They'll certainly try, but we need to be realistic about the economics of that. Developing a new diagnostic from scratch costs, what, around $879 million and can take 10, 15 years. And big companies are just slow.
11:13They're great at scaling and selling things, but that initial spark of discovery. They're risk averse. A startup is a speedboat. Big Pharma is an aircraft carrier. You can't just turn an aircraft carrier on a dime to chase some new idea.
11:26And there's another problem with doing it in-house, getting the talent. Yes. The best minds. But the whole legal framework around employment has also become a roadblock. You mean non-competes. I remember back in 2024, it really felt like they were dead.
11:41The FTC issued a rule to ban them everywhere. It was a very brief moment of hope for employees, but the court struck it down. A court in the Northern District of Texas ruled the FTC had overstepped its authority.
11:55So that ban is gone. effectively, yes. By late 2025, the FTC had given up on the nationwide ban. So if you're a top scientist at a big firm. You are almost certainly bound by a contract that says you cannot leave and start a competing company for one or 2 years.
12:11It all just comes full circle then. You can't quit your job to start a company because of your non-compete. If you do somehow start one, you can't get funding because VCs are scammed. If you beat all those odds, you can't get acquired.
12:21It's a closed loop. And I think what the authors are doing here is waving a big red flag. They're saying, look, preventing monopolies is a noble goal. We all want that. Of course. But if the policy is too aggressive, we risk just fossilizing the entire industry.
12:35It's the difference between a neat, tidy garden and a wild forest. The regulators want a garden where no single plant gets too big. But innovation, real messy innovation happens in the forest. And patients need what grows in the forest.
12:50So let's try to put a bow on this. We've walked through the Sherman Act, the alumina case, the IRS rules, non-competes. What is the actual state of the union for genomics innovation in early 2026? The state of the Union is, I'd say, paralysis by analysis.
13:06Companies are so scared of triggering a government review that they're sitting on their cache. We are moving into an era of build it yourself or don't vote it at all. Which sounds good, build it yourself, but in fields like cancer detection, every year you delay matters.
13:21speed is life. That's the fundamental trade-off. We might prevent a monopoly in 2030, but in the process, we might delay a cure that could have been ready in 2028. It's a heavy thought. We think of 2026 as this futuristic time, but in some ways, we've gone backwards.
13:36We're in this rigid system where the big players stay big, not because they're innovating, but because nobody else is allowed to get into the castle. The drawbridge is up. I want to leave our listeners with one final thought to chew on.
13:46We've spent this deep dive talking about the legal walls that have been built. We know the Grail test made it out, despite all the fighting. But what about the next Grail? If the path from a lab bench to a patient now runs through a 3 year DOJ investigation and an IRS audit, how many other life-saving ideas are just gathering dust in a garage right now?
14:09Because the business model itself has been made illegal. That is the question that should keep us all up at night. This episode was based on an open access article under the CCBY 4.0 license. You can find a direct link to the paper and the license in our episode description.
14:25If you enjoyed this, follow or subscribe in your podcast app and leave a 5 star rating. If you'd like to support our work, use the donation link in the description. Now, stay with us for an original track created especially for this episode and inspired by the article you just heard about.
14:39Thanks for listening and join us next time as we explore more science based by base.
