The Federal Trade Commission closed its antitrust investigation into four major truck manufacturers Tuesday after securing written commitments that address competition concerns arising from their environmental partnership with California regulators. The manufacturers—Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR, and Volvo Group—control up to 99% of the heavy-duty truck market in the United States and faced scrutiny over their 2023 Clean Truck Partnership agreement with the California Air Resources Board.

The FTC determined that written commitments made by the manufacturers, backed by reporting and disclosure obligations, accomplished the objectives of the investigation without requiring enforcement action. The Commission's closing statement detailed several antitrust concerns that prompted the investigation into the partnership structure.

Under the Clean Truck Partnership agreement signed in 2023, the four manufacturers agreed to abide by a series of CARB regulations limiting truck sales and greenhouse gas emissions. The FTC found that this agreement raised multiple competition issues that threatened market dynamics in the heavy-duty trucking sector.

The Commission identified three primary antitrust concerns with the partnership structure. First, the agreement forced manufacturers to produce zero-emissions engines rather than internal combustion engines, with these output restrictions remaining in place even if CARB regulations were later invalidated by courts or other authorities. Second, the agreement did not prevent one truck manufacturer from enforcing restrictions against competing manufacturers, potentially creating uneven competitive advantages. Third, the agreement locked in terms with limited political accountability and reduced opportunities for elected officials to modify the arrangements.

The FTC's investigation took on new significance after recent political developments. Since the Commission opened its probe, President Trump signed legislation revoking CARB's waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency, fundamentally changing the regulatory landscape that underpinned the original partnership. The manufacturers largely disclaimed the Clean Truck Partnership agreement following these political changes.

Building on these developments, the FTC moved quickly to secure commitments from the four manufacturers and their trade association. The letters submitted by Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR, and Volvo Group to the Commission state that the Clean Truck Partnership is unenforceable and that none of the manufacturers has attempted or will attempt to enforce the partnership terms against competitors.

Taylor C. Hoogendoorn, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition, characterized CARB's regulatory approach as overreach that posed threats to American trucking while presenting serious antitrust concerns. "The Bureau is pleased that the leading heavy-duty truck manufacturers agreed to a course correction," Hoogendoorn said. "The Commission's swift action will put the Clean Truck Partnership squarely in the rearview mirror and prevent repeats of CARB's troubling regulatory gambit."

The resolution highlights broader tensions between environmental regulation and antitrust enforcement, particularly when industry-wide agreements involve competitors controlling dominant market positions. The heavy-duty truck market's concentration among four manufacturers made their collective agreement especially concerning from a competition perspective.

The FTC's approach in this case demonstrates how antitrust enforcement can adapt to changing political and regulatory circumstances. Rather than pursuing lengthy litigation, the Commission secured binding commitments that addressed its core concerns while acknowledging the changed regulatory environment following federal action on CARB's waivers.

For the trucking industry, the resolution provides clarity on the enforceability of the Clean Truck Partnership while establishing precedent for how similar environmental partnerships might be structured to avoid antitrust scrutiny. The manufacturers' commitments include ongoing reporting and disclosure obligations that will allow the FTC to monitor compliance and market behavior.

The case also illustrates the complex intersection between state environmental regulations and federal antitrust law. California's aggressive approach to reducing emissions from heavy-duty trucks created a framework that, while environmentally motivated, raised competition concerns when it involved coordination among dominant market players.

Looking ahead, the resolution may influence how manufacturers approach future environmental partnerships and regulatory compliance. The FTC's emphasis on maintaining competitive dynamics while addressing environmental goals suggests that similar agreements will need careful structuring to avoid antitrust violations.

The investigation's closure removes regulatory uncertainty that had hung over the four manufacturers since the probe began. With written commitments in place and the Clean Truck Partnership effectively disclaimed, the companies can focus on navigating the evolving regulatory landscape for heavy-duty vehicle emissions without the specter of antitrust enforcement.

The outcome represents a compromise that addresses the FTC's competition concerns while recognizing the political and regulatory changes that have transformed the context surrounding the original partnership agreement.