Will AI replace antitrust lawyers in the (near) future?

Most of the time on this blog, the focus is on new cases and the latest developments in antitrust. Today, though, I want to turn the spotlight on the profession itself. With AI systems now capable of drafting contracts, spotting compliance issues, and even producing blog posts, it is fair to ask: Are antitrust lawyers at risk of becoming obsolete? In what follows, I take up the debate – laying out the arguments on both sides (for another post on AI and antitrust see here).

The case for AI supremacy (or at least, dominance)

Admittedly, there are some advantages of AI over natural persons, even when it comes to antitrust:

• First, AI systems operate with exceptional speed. They can process vast sets of data, detect patterns and flag relevant precedents. They (usually) do so more quickly and at lower marginal cost than a human team. This allows for quick and more cost‑effective results during due diligences and investigations.

• AI is already proving valuable in merger control and will become even more integral. It can conduct support multi‑jurisdictional filing analyses and, by leveraging relevant case law, assess market definitions and draft merger filings accordingly. Trained on historical cases, AI may even generate probabilistic forecasts concerning clearance outcomes, potential remedies, and litigation risks.

• Setting aside data protection considerations, AI can also strengthen preventative compliance. By encoding standard patterns and checklists, it can, for example, monitor email communications or scan investor presentations, thereby reducing the likelihood of human error or oversight in routine tasks.

Antitrust lawyers will remain essential…

So, will the antitrust bar be replaced by AI tools which make lawyers redundant? I do not hope  think so. Here are the reasons why:

• Antitrust law is not a fixed, mechanical set of rules – it is deeply interpretive, evolving, and political. Cases often require balancing multiple objectives such as existing and potential competition, innovation, market structure and developments consumer welfare, horizontal, vertical and conglomerate effects. While AI can generate several “reasoned” lines of argument, it still cannot reliably exercise value judgments, balance policy trade‑offs, or adapt to shifting legal frameworks. The role of the human lawyer is to interpret, select, and defend the most appropriate approach. Moreover, antitrust cases often implicate sensitive reputational, strategic, and regulatory politics. Clients look to their counsel not only to assess legal risks, but also to anticipate how decisions will be perceived by regulators, the media, and other stakeholders. That level of nuanced judgment remains, and will continue to remain, a distinctly human responsibility.

• Much of antitrust work involves cases at the cutting edge: New digital platforms, algorithmic pricing, data ecosystems, multi-sided markets, global supply chains, and nascent theories (e.g., killer acquisitions, acqui-hires). These are precisely the contexts where precedent is scarce, analogies are fragile, and historical data offers limited guidance. AI, however, thrives on similarity to prior cases. In truly novel or boundary-pushing matters, it may mislead by overfitting to past patterns or failing to grasp structural innovation. Human lawyers remain essential for spotting breakpoints, challenging flawed analogies, and determining when to move beyond precedent.

• When legal advice leads to an adverse outcome – such as a blocked merger, unsuccessful litigation, or a compliance failure – there must be someone accountable. Clients expect a human lawyer to take responsibility for the recommendation, evaluate potential liability, and manage associated risks. Dependence on a “black box” AI system therefore raises serious concerns around accountability.

• Legal advice is not just about correctness – it is about persuasion. Clients hire antitrust lawyers not just to produce documents but to argue before regulators and courts, calibrate messaging, manage reactions, and adapt on the fly. Clients value human judgment, credibility, professional relationships, and trust. A fully automated system may lack the gravitas, rhetorical agility, or strategic empathy that an antitrust lawyer brings to the table.

• As we have outlined before (see here and here), practicing antitrust law is not only about law. The antitrust community thrives on personal connections and shared experiences. These global gatherings where legal professionals exchange ideas, engage in meaningful dialogue, and build relationships is something every antitrust lawyer values. It is hard to imagine how sterile these events would become under AI management. I have not yet come across an algorithm that, if asked, also thinks that the next round of drinks at 3 pm is a good idea…  

…but the nature of their work will evolve

In sum, while AI will certainly transform the practice of antitrust law, I do not believe it will fully replace antitrust practitioners in the foreseeable future. The most realistic scenario is one of augmentation rather than substitution: AI will serve as an essential tool to assist antitrust lawyers, but the ultimate decision-making authority and responsibility will remain with humans, at least for the time being.

In that sense, the role of antitrust lawyers will shift from primarily drafting documents to focusing more on strategy development, client advising, and navigating complex uncertainties. Those who thrive will be the ones who embrace and leverage AI, rather than those who fear or resist it. That said, many questions remain open, spanning ethical concerns, professional standards, and the training of the next generation of lawyers. Interesting times ahead.

Photo created by AI