Blockchain and Bitcoin

Blockchain and Bitcoin

Antitrust and Competition Counsel for the Blockchain, Bitcoin, and Crypto Economy

Blockchain and Bitcoin promised decentralization. The antitrust laws still apply.

Bitcoin, blockchain, and the wider crypto economy were designed to remove gatekeepers. In practice, every meaningful layer of that stack — mining pools, validator sets, exchanges, stablecoin issuers, custody providers, oracle networks, standard-setting consortia, and the protocols themselves — is run by humans and corporations that can, and sometimes do, coordinate and otherwise act in ways that raise serious antitrust questions.

Bona Law represents companies operating across the full blockchain and bitcoin stack — mining and validator operations, exchanges and trading platforms, stablecoin and tokenization issuers, wallet and custody providers, decentralized application developers, and traditional financial institutions building on-chain offerings. We counsel on antitrust risk, design compliance programs that work in a fast-moving regulatory environment, advise on industry consortia and standard-setting, and represent clients in private antitrust litigation and government investigations when they arise.


Featured Analysis

Our practice guide is the most comprehensive U.S. treatment of antitrust law as it applies to blockchain, Bitcoin, and the broader crypto economy.

Antitrust Guidelines for Companies Using Blockchain Technology — Updated May 19, 2026

Author: Luis Blanquez. A practice guide covering Section 1 and Section 2 issues across permissioned and permissionless blockchains — anticompetitive agreements among validators, group boycotts and refusals to deal, information exchange, exclusive dealing, tying, and the algorithmic-pricing case law (RealPage, Yardi, MGM, Cendyn, Greystar) now reshaping smart-contract risk. Includes substantive treatment of In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto-Asset Litigation, BiT Global Digital v. Coinbase, United American Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc., the GENIUS Act, the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, and an HSR analysis of the Yuga Labs / CryptoPunks NFT-IP acquisition. Read the Guidelines →


Recent Developments

Crypto antitrust law is moving quickly in 2026. In In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto-Asset Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted class certification on February 23, 2026 — the first major U.S. crypto antitrust class action to reach certification, with spot-market and futures subclasses. Tether and Bitfinex have petitioned the Second Circuit for interlocutory review. GENIUS Act final rules implementing the federal stablecoin regime are due July 18, 2026, with the OCC, FDIC, FinCEN, OFAC, and NCUA proposed rules out for comment. The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act advanced from Senate Banking 15–9 on May 14, 2026, and would split SEC and CFTC jurisdiction over digital assets. The SEC and CFTC issued a joint interpretation on crypto-asset classification on March 17, 2026. Federal crypto enforcement has receded; private plaintiffs, state AGs, and the algorithmic-pricing line of cases are filling the gap. For ongoing analysis, see The Antitrust Attorney Blog's Bitcoin and Blockchain category.


The Opportunity — and the Antitrust Risk

The structural features that make blockchain valuable — distributed validation, open protocols, programmable money, and community governance — also create antitrust pressure points.

Where antitrust risk arises in blockchain and bitcoin

  • Mining and validator concentration. A handful of mining pools or staking operators can control enough of a network's hashrate or stake to set protocol policy, exclude rivals, or coordinate on transaction processing. Section 1 group boycott and Section 2 monopolization theories both apply. The first blockchain antitrust decision, United American Corp. v. Bitmain, dismissed Section 1 claims over a Bitcoin Cash hard fork because the plaintiff pleaded neither a plausible cross-group conspiracy nor a defined market, and because a fork that produced more coins, not fewer, caused no antitrust injury.
  • Exchange and on-ramp gatekeeping. Listing decisions, fee schedules, withdrawal terms, KYC standards, and integration with custodians and stablecoin issuers can all become Section 1 or Section 2 issues when participants coordinate or when a dominant exchange forecloses competitors. BiT Global v. Coinbase tested the duty-to-deal theory against a dominant exchange that delisted a wrapped-bitcoin product weeks after launching its own competitor. The court denied a TRO, signaled dismissal, and the suit was dropped—but it previews how courts will treat refusal-to-deal claims against exchanges that launch rival products.
  • Stablecoin and payments-rail gatekeeping. The intersection of bank-issued stablecoins, fiat on-ramps, and on-chain payment networks creates exclusionary-conduct and refusal-to-deal exposure — particularly as banks and Big Tech platforms position around the GENIUS Act framework. In In re Tether and Bitfinex, a court sustained most Sherman Act claims alleging that a stablecoin issuer and an exchange coordinated to inflate token supply and drive demand for other cryptocurrencies — establishing that coordinated volume manipulation through a stablecoin can survive a motion to dismiss without a direct price-fixing agreement on the coin itself.
  • Protocol governance and forks. Coordinated decisions by a small group of developers, miners, or exchanges to support, block, or fork a protocol can implicate group-boycott and refusal-to-deal doctrines. The Bitmain dispute and the Ethereum Merge are leading real-world examples.
  • Standard-setting and industry consortia. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), token standards (ERC, BEP, SPL), interoperability standards, and DAO-based governance bodies are all subject to the same antitrust standard-setting principles that apply to traditional SSOs.
  • Tying, bundling, and exclusive dealing. Wallets bundled with exchanges, custody bundled with staking, validator services bundled with infrastructure — all raise the same antitrust questions that arose around app stores, browsers, and operating systems.
  • Mergers and acquisitions. Crypto-native M&A — exchange-to-exchange, custody-to-custody, infrastructure-to-protocol — increasingly attracts antitrust scrutiny from the FTC, DOJ, and foreign competition authorities, especially where the target controls a critical input or chokepoint.
  • In algorithmic pricing cases courts let plaintiffs proceed where software pooled competitors’ nonpublic data and fed it back into shared recommendations (RealPage; Duffy v. Yardi) and dismissed them where each defendant merely licensed the same tool (Gibson v. Cendyn Group, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2025). The DOJ's RealPage suit, the Greystar consent decree, and California's AB325 draw the same line, which transfers directly to blockchain: a permissioned network whose validators or smart contracts ingest each participant’s price or quantity and route it back into shared outputs, is structurally identical to the arrangements enforcers now target. Keep nonpublic competitor data out of shared computation.
  • Cross-border enforcement. The blockchain economy is global. We coordinate with European Commission DG Comp, UK CMA, and other foreign authorities through our international competition practice. Where the conduct is foreign, the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act gates whether a U.S. court can reach it at all—a threshold we analyze before any Sherman Act theory.


Speaking and Bar Leadership in the Blockchain Antitrust Space

Bona Law's blockchain and bitcoin antitrust work is not just on the page — the firm has helped shape the conversation at the highest levels of the antitrust bar.

ABA Antitrust Law Section, 2024 Spring Meeting — Web3, Blockchain, and Exclusionary Conduct

Bona Law convened and led the dedicated blockchain panel at the largest U.S. antitrust gathering — the ABA Antitrust Section's 2024 Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., which drew approximately 4,000 antitrust practitioners and enforcers. Kristen Harris moderated the Web3, Blockchain, and Exclusionary Conduct panel. Luis Blanquez organized the panel in his role as Vice Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section's Distribution and Franchising Committee. Steven Cernak served as Chair of the ABA Antitrust Section (now immediate Past Chair). 

Beyond the 2024 Spring Meeting panel, Bona Law attorneys regularly speak and write on blockchain antitrust topics. If you would like to invite a Bona Law attorney to speak on a blockchain antitrust topic, please contact us.


Our Blockchain and Bitcoin Antitrust Practice

Bona Law's blockchain and bitcoin antitrust practice is built on three pillars: substantive antitrust depth, technology fluency, and international reach. Our attorneys have practiced at top BigLaw competition groups, served at U.S. and State antitrust enforcement agencies, served at the European Commission's DG Comp and chaired or co-chaired ABA Antitrust Section committees. We bring that depth to a fast-moving area where most antitrust questions have not yet been litigated.

How we help blockchain and Bitcoin clients

  • Antitrust counseling on day-to-day business decisions — listing policies, fee schedules, partnership and integration terms, mining pool and validator arrangements, custodial relationships, and on-/off-ramp design.
  • Compliance program design for blockchain-native organizations — including risk assessment, information-exchange protocols, employee training, and governance documentation calibrated to a permissionless protocol environment.
  • Industry consortia, BIPs/EIPs, token standards, and DAO governance — antitrust review of meeting protocols, voting structures, working group participation, and information-sharing practices to keep standard-setting and protocol governance within the antitrust safe-harbor framework.
  • Smart-contract and algorithmic-coordination review — design-level antitrust review of permissioned-network architectures, oracle structures, and automated market makers in light of the RealPage / Yardi / Cendyn line of algorithmic-pricing cases and California's AB325.
  • Mergers and acquisitions — Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification (including for IP and NFT-asset acquisitions), Second Request defense, and coordination with international counsel before the European Commission, UK CMA, and other foreign competition authorities.
  • Investigations and litigation — representation in FTC, DOJ, and state attorney general investigations, and in private antitrust litigation.
  • Cross-border coordination — through our international practice, we work alongside EU, UK, and Latin American counsel to manage parallel antitrust scrutiny of global blockchain businesses.


Key Antitrust Issues We Cover

Section 1 issues

  • Group boycotts and concerted refusals to deal among miners, validators, exchanges, or developers.
  • Information exchange in industry consortia and standard-setting organizations (SSOs).
  • Market allocation, including geographic and customer allocation in cross-border crypto businesses.
  • Joint ventures, mining pools, and infrastructure-sharing arrangements.
  • Algorithmic and oracle-based coordination — including questions raised by automated market makers and other algorithm-driven exchange mechanisms. The RealPage line of cases—and the Ninth Circuit's 2025 ruling in Gibson v. Cendyn Group—now separates lawful use of a common tool from unlawful pooling of nonpublic competitor data fed back into shared outputs.


Section 2 issues

  • Monopolization and attempted monopolization by dominant exchanges, custodians, or infrastructure providers.
  • Refusal to deal — including the application of refusal-to-deal doctrine to validator participation, listing decisions, and on-/off-ramp access. BiT Global v. Coinbase previews how courts treat duty-to-deal claims against dominant exchanges that launch competing products.
  • Exclusive dealing and loyalty arrangements between exchanges and stablecoin issuers, custodians, or wallet providers.
  • Tying and bundling — wallets bundled with exchanges, custody bundled with staking, validator services bundled with infrastructure.
  • Predatory pricing in token launches, exchange fee wars, and listing economics.


Merger, regulatory, and cross-border issues

  • HSR notification and Second Request defense for crypto-native M&A, including IP and NFT-asset acquisitions.
  • Foreign-authority clearance (with international co-counsel), including EU, UK CMA, and Latin American competition agencies.
  • State and federal regulatory investigations with antitrust implications.
  • Antitrust analysis of stablecoin frameworks and bank-issued digital currency offerings under the GENIUS Act and the pending Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act.
  • Antitrust analysis of crypto–AI convergence, including AI-driven trading, AI-managed wallets, and protocol-governance assistance.


Recent Analysis from Bona Law

Bona Law writes prolifically on the intersection of antitrust law and blockchain, Bitcoin, and the broader crypto economy. A selection of recent and frequently-cited pieces:

For a complete archive of Bona Law's writing in this space, see The Antitrust Attorney Blog's Bitcoin and Blockchain category archive →


Representative Engagements

Bona Law has counseled blockchain and bitcoin clients on a range of antitrust questions. Specific engagements are confidential; the descriptions below convey the types of counseling work the firm has handled in this space.

Cross-border Antitrust Counseling for a Cryptocurrency Exchange

Bona Law advised a crypto exchange expanding across Latin America after a dominant global payments network blocked it from advertising and issuing prepaid debit cards through the exchange's licensed card issuer, withholding access to the network's money-transfer rail. We analyzed whether the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act would let a U.S. court reach foreign conduct at all. We also advised on market definition: debit-network services and international remittance, each tied to competitive effects, and whether the network's conduct was a concerted refusal to deal under Section 1 or monopoly conduct under Section 2. We weighed the network's stated business justifications, tested them for pretext, and worked through antitrust injury and damages.

Post-Acquisition Counseling — Cryptocurrency Infrastructure

Counseled a cryptocurrency infrastructure operator following its acquisition of a controlling stake in a software vendor whose customer base included a competitor of the operator — advising on Section 2 refusal-to-deal and vertical-foreclosure exposure that constrains how a newly affiliated input supplier may treat that competitor.


Why Bona Law for Blockchain and Bitcoin Antitrust

  • A boutique with BigLaw bench. Bona Law's attorneys trained at top antitrust practices including Biglaw, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the California Attorney General and the European Commission's DG Comp. We bring that depth to a boutique structure that avoids the conflicts and rates that often keep blockchain companies away from full-service firms.
  • International reach. Through our international competition practice — with attorneys experienced in EU, UK, and Latin American antitrust — we coordinate effectively in matters where the U.S., the European Commission, the UK CMA, and other foreign competition authorities are reviewing the same conduct or transaction.
  • Thought leadership in the space. Bona Law has been writing about the intersection of antitrust and blockchain since the first major crypto antitrust case in 2021. Our practitioner guide — Antitrust Guidelines for Companies Using Blockchain Technology, authored by Luis Blanquez — was updated on May 19, 2026 to cover In re Tether and Bitfinex, BiT Global v. Coinbase, the RealPage / Yardi / Cendyn algorithmic-pricing line of cases as applied to smart contracts, the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act, and Yuga Labs / CryptoPunks HSR analysis. Our writing is read by in-house counsel at major exchanges, custodians, mining operations, and infrastructure providers.
  • Bar leadership. Bona Law convened and led the Web3, Blockchain, and Exclusionary Conduct panel at the ABA Antitrust Law Section's 2024 Spring Meeting, the largest gathering of antitrust practitioners and enforcers in the United States. Luis Blanquez serves as Vice Chair of the Section's Distribution and Franchising Committee; Kristen Harris served as Counsel to the Chair and now serves as Vice Chair of the Section’s Trade, Sports and Professional Associations Committee; and Steven Cernak is immediate Past Chair of the Section.
  • Recognition. Bona Law has been recognized in the Chambers Spotlight 2026 California and New York Guides for Antitrust, and our attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America©, Mondaq Thought Leadership, and the Litigation Counsel of America.

Contact Us

Bona Law represents companies across the blockchain, Bitcoin, and crypto economy on antitrust counseling, compliance, mergers and acquisitions, investigations, and litigation. Contact us for an initial discussion.

Practice Areas

Antitrust Litigation General Commercial Litigation Appellate Litigation Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Mergers & Acquisitions Investigations Counseling & Compliance Regulatory & Political Advocacy Industry-Specific & International Experience Blockchain and Bitcoin