On January 29, 2026, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the US Postal Service (USPS) made their first payment under the new whistleblower program launched just last year.1 The program offers payments to individuals who voluntarily report potential criminal antitrust law violations to DOJ.2 As this development shows, the program provides DOJ another effective tool for identifying illegal collusion. The payment is also another reminder to companies about the importance of antitrust compliance.
Background on the Whistleblower Program
In 2025, DOJ and USPS announced a partnership for a whistleblower program to incentivize reporting of potential criminal antitrust violations.3 People can obtain payments for reporting criminal violations of the Sherman Act, federal offenses that relate to procurement, or violations of laws against obstruction of a federal competition investigation or proceeding.4 The violation must also be postal-related.5 That requirement is not well-defined but requires that USPS Inspector Services identify a specific and credible harm to the USPS, though the harm need not be substantial or material.6
A whistleblower must voluntarily provide new and original information of a potentially criminal antitrust violation to qualify for a payment.7 The alleged violation must result in a criminal fine or recovery of at least $1 million.8 Whistleblowers whose information leads to a successful enforcement action may receive up to 30% of the criminal fine.9
The First Whistleblower Payment
DOJ made its first-ever reward to a whistleblower who provided information regarding a bid rigging conspiracy involving EBLOCK Corporation. EBLOCK offers an online auction platform for used vehicles.10 The Information includes two charges: a Sherman Act charge and a fraud charge.11 The Information alleges that in November 2020, EBLOCK acquired Company A, another used vehicle online auction platform.12 Company A had been involved in illegal conduct before the acquisition, and EBLOCK failed to stop the conduct. The Information alleges that from November 2020 to February 2022, legacy employees of Company A conspired with individuals at another company, Company B, to suppress and eliminate competition for used vehicles sold on Company A’s online auction platform, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.13 The Information further alleges that the conspirators engaged in “shill bidding” on Company A’s platform, resulting in the placement of fake bids intended to artificially increase the sales prices for used vehicles.14 The Information notes that the co-conspirators pooled and split the profits, describing this profit pooling as part of both the antitrust and fraud schemes.15 To resolve the matter, EBLOCK agreed to pay a $3.28 million fine and to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement that requires EBLOCK to take additional remedial measures, including implementing a compliance program and other forms of cooperation with DOJ.16 The whistleblower received a $1 million reward.17
Implications
The first award under the whistleblower program is a significant escalation in cartel enforcement. For the first time, DOJ and USPS are offering individuals who know about illegal conduct a substantial incentive to report that information to DOJ. DOJ already widely uses other tactics, such as unannounced drop-in interviews, wiretaps, search warrants and compelled grand jury testimony to discover potentially collusive conduct. The whistleblower program provides DOJ with another tool to unearth potential criminal antitrust violations that is quickly proving to be effective. Indeed, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement Omeed Assefi describes the program as having already received a “frenzy” of whistleblower reports and expects to make additional announcements in the coming months.18 This result likely means that DOJ leadership will continue to invest in the program’s success.
Notably, there is no allegation that USPS was directly victimized by the conduct, only that the defendant used the mail system to further the illegal schemes.19 This suggests that USPS will construe the required nexus to anticompetitive conduct broadly, extending the whistleblower program to almost every corner of the US economy.
The stakes are large: if whistleblower awards had been available when large international cartels in technology, transportation, financial markets, pharmaceuticals or chemicals were prosecuted, people providing information could have collected millions of dollars based on the massive criminal fines and penalties collected in those cases. The potential for huge rewards creates an enormous incentive for individuals to report cartels—and the lawyers who specialize in representing whistleblowers to counsel them to do so.
The announcement also creates a significant change in the calculus that companies face when deciding whether to self-report potentially illegal conduct under DOJ’s long-running leniency program. Traditionally, companies considering whether to self-report had to consider only the chance that a co-conspirator would report the conduct first. Now companies that are concerned about potential criminal activity must also account for the risk that their employees, their co-conspirator’s employees and others in the industry with knowledge of the activity may blow the whistle on the collusion. This will likely lead to an increase in self-reporting under the leniency program. Companies should consider how the whistleblower program affects their internal compliance efforts. For example, they should consider taking measures to ensure that employees who are aware of illegal conduct have the opportunity and incentive to report that conduct to the company before reporting it to the attention of DOJ or USPS.
Finally, although the focus of the announcement is on the whistleblower program, another aspect of the case is notable. It appears that EBLOCK bought itself the criminal exposure when it acquired Company A, which had been involved in a bid-rigging conspiracy with Company B. This highlights the need for companies that are considering acquisitions to evaluate as part of due diligence whether they might be acquiring cartel exposure and whether antitrust scrutiny of the transaction could uncover anticompetitive activity of interest to the enforcers.
