Antitrust litigation can present demanding communication challenges. Civil and criminal antitrust cases sometimes hinge on dense economic theories, competing expert models, and abstract concepts such as market definition, competitive effects, and pricing dynamics. At the same time, jurors might have deeply ingrained assumptions about monopolies, “big business,” market fairness, and corporate behavior. The tension between technical complexity and juror intuition can make antitrust cases difficult to try before a jury, particularly when party admissions are unavailable to the litigants.
Against this backdrop, the role of jury consultants in antitrust litigation has expanded significantly. Once viewed primarily as trial-stage resources focused on voir dire and presentation, jury consultants are increasingly engaged at the earliest stages of an antitrust matter and are often used throughout trial. When used strategically, consultants can help shape case theory, refine narratives, test economic concepts, and identify juror attitudes long before a jury is empaneled.
Why Antitrust Cases Can be Especially Challenging for Juries
Unlike many other areas of civil litigation, antitrust cases may ask jurors to resolve disputes that are fundamentally economic rather than purely factual. Jurors may be required to assess complex expert testimony involving econometric models, hypothetical markets, and counterfactual worlds—what competition “would have looked like” absent the alleged conduct. Even highly educated jurors can struggle to absorb this material, particularly when both sides present dueling experts armed with complicated graphs, formulas, and statistical analyses and the record evidence is more blurry than clear
Compounding this challenge, jurors can bring strong preconceptions into the courtroom. Large companies may be viewed with skepticism, certain industries, such as technology, healthcare, or energy, may carry reputational baggage, and the term “monopoly” itself can trigger strong reactions untethered from legal standards. Jurors’ views of economists and expert witnesses also vary widely and may or may not influence how technical testimony is received, regardless of its analytical rigor.
Effectively Utilizing Jury Consultants
One of the most significant trends in antitrust litigation is the earlier integration of jury consultants into case strategy. Rather than waiting until trial approaches, many teams now engage consultants during the investigative phase or early in discovery.
Early-stage focus groups and surveys can test high-level narratives and themes before they are locked into pleadings and discovery positions. Consultants can assess how potential jurors react to allegations of market power, exclusionary conduct, or collusion, and whether certain defenses resonate more strongly than others. These exercises often influence decisions about how to frame the story of the case, which facts to emphasize, and which legal theories are most likely to be understood, and importantly, accepted by a lay audience.
As antitrust cases progress, mock trials and iterative jury research allow teams to test their case in realistic settings and identify vulnerabilities early. Jury consultants also assist with voir dire strategy, jury selection, and trial support, while remaining mindful of ethical guardrails governing juror research and privacy. And they sometimes steer “shadow juries” through the case in real time so counsel can assess how well their case is likely being received.
Shaping Narrative and Expert Strategy
One of the most valuable contributions jury consultants make in antitrust cases is helping trial teams bridge the gap between economic theory and juror comprehension. Consultants work at the intersection of social science, psychology, and communications, applying research-based principles to understand how people process information, form judgments, and respond to persuasion.
Through focus groups, surveys, and mock presentations, consultants help identify which narratives feel intuitive to jurors and which trigger skepticism or confusion. In many cases, early research leads teams to rethink core case themes or abandon arguments that are legally sound but difficult to explain or emotionally unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Jurors in certain future antitrust cases will be asked to resolve technical disputes with far-reaching consequences. In this environment, litigants should consider whether to use jury consultants throughout the lifecycle of the antitrust matter to help them present clearer narratives, anticipate juror reactions, and improve outcomes in high-stakes cases.
