The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- The ABA repository identifies a June 2013 comment submission about leniency
- A Notice on Leniency describes how a competition authority may reward cooperation
- Leniency programs are widely used to detect and prosecute hard core cartels
- Jurisdictions differ on how they treat later applicants for leniency
- Leniency policies often interact with criminal penalties settlements and private damages
- The scope of any leniency notice depends on the jurisdiction that issued it
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal and state: The American Bar Association lists a June 2013 joint comment submission about a draft “Notice on Leniency.”
- Federal and state: The submission is attributed to the ABA Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law.
- Federal and state: The ABA listing shows separate items labeled as a cover letter and comments for the submission.
- Federal and state: The ABA listing states that the Section comments were submitted and cleared under the ABA Blanket Authority Policy.
- Federal and state: The OECD describes leniency programmes as an important tool used by competition authorities to detect, investigate, and prosecute hard-core cartels.
- Federal and state: The OECD describes two general approaches that either grant immunity only to the first applicant or also provide reductions for later applicants.
- Federal and state: The OECD notes that many leniency programmes require full and continuous cooperation, along with confidentiality, during the procedure.
- Federal and state: The OECD explains that leniency policies interact with other legal tools including criminal liability, settlement practices, and private damage actions.
As of February 2026, the public sources cited below described the June 2013 ABA submission and general background on leniency programs, and published content can change over time.
The ABA repository identifies a June 2013 comment submission about leniency
The ABA’s antitrust “Comments, Reports, & Briefs” repository includes an entry for joint comments by the Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law on a draft revision of a “Notice on Leniency,” dated June 2013, and it is listed with separate items labeled for a cover letter and comments on the same topic on the ABA 2013 Comments, Reports, & Briefs page.
That repository page also states that the Section comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Policy, which is an internal ABA process for clearing certain Section-level submissions.
A Notice on Leniency describes how a competition authority may reward cooperation
A “notice on leniency” commonly refers to written guidance connected to a leniency program, which is a program that offers cartel participants a possibility of receiving favorable treatment in exchange for coming forward and providing evidence and cooperation.
One practical reason these notices matter is that leniency systems often involve sensitive issues, such as what information must be provided, how cooperation is measured, and what protections may apply to the information shared with the authority.
Leniency programs are widely used to detect and prosecute hard core cartels
The OECD’s Competition Committee has described leniency policies as a tool that many competition authorities rely on to detect, investigate, and prosecute hard-core cartels, because cartel conduct can be difficult to uncover without insider evidence.
Even when leniency is available, the OECD notes that authorities still use their own investigative tools, and leniency is described as one part of broader enforcement activity rather than a full substitute for investigation.
Jurisdictions differ on how they treat later applicants for leniency
The OECD describes two broad program designs, including systems that grant full immunity only to the first applicant and systems that also offer some reduction to later applicants who provide useful added value.
As a result, a “leniency program” can mean different things depending on the jurisdiction, the timing of an application, and the value of information that a company or individual provides during the investigation.
Leniency policies often interact with criminal penalties settlements and private damages
The OECD also explains that leniency policies interact with other legal tools and risks, including criminal liability for cartel conduct in some jurisdictions, settlement or plea bargaining practices, and private damage actions.
Because these interactions can affect incentives and expectations, comment letters on draft leniency guidance often focus on how the rules work together, including how confidentiality and cooperation obligations are framed in the written policy.
The scope of any leniency notice depends on the jurisdiction that issued it
The ABA’s June 2013 submission is an example of cross-border policy input, where a U.S.-based professional association commented on a non-U.S. competition authority’s draft guidance, and the legal effect of any “notice” generally depends on the local legal system that authorizes and enforces it.
In practice, a single draft notice can raise questions about administrative process, investigation management, and how incentives are structured, even when the underlying goal is broadly similar across jurisdictions.
