Mathis Wagner, PhD

Mathis Wagner is a Principal in the Antitrust and Competition Practice. He is an expert in the economics of monopolization, the analysis of issues related to labor markets, including noncompete and non-solicitation clauses, and the empirical methods used in antitrust and competition analysis.

Dr. Wagner was the testifying expert in a noncompete/non-solicitation case (DaVita Inc. v. AIN) and is retained pro bono on behalf of plaintiffs in A.A. et al. v. Nancy T. Buckner to perform economic and statistical analysis related to certain aspects of the Alabama Department of Human Resources’ administration of the foster care system. He has provided consulting and expert support in monopolization cases in a variety of industries, including in Epic v. Google, NFL's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation, Veeva v. IQVIA, American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, Sandoz v. United Therapeutics Corporation, and Apple v. Qualcomm. His work on mergers and cartel/collusion cases includes supporting the Department of Justice’s expert in a Tunney Act proceeding related to the merger of CVS Health and Aetna, on behalf of Willis Towers Watson (WTW), assisting at all stages of merger review in connection with the $30 billion proposed merger between Aon and WTW, and supporting the testifying expert in estimating plaintiff-specific damages in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.

Before joining Bates White, Dr. Wagner was a faculty member at Boston College, where he taught microeconomics and labor economics courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research includes work on the impact of consolidation on premiums in Medicare Part D, optimal experimental/survey design, the impact of immigration and refugees in host countries, the determinants of migration decisions, and the incentives inherent in the design of old-age social security. Dr. Wagner has extensive experience consulting with the World Bank, including survey design and analysis, program evaluation, and analysis of the impact of immigration. He has published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Health Economics, Journal of Labor Economics, World Bank Economic Review, Experimental Economics, Economic Inquiry, and the Scandinavian Journal of Economics.

PhD, Economics, University of Chicago

MA, Economics, University of Chicago

BA, Economics, University of Cambridge

SPOTLIGHT

Co-led the team supporting expert Doug Bernheim in Epic Games v. Google, Epic’s antitrust litigation related to Google’s app store practices. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Epic on all counts and all claims. Read more.

Testifying experience and retentions

• Testifying expert on behalf of plaintiffs in A. et al. v. Nancy T. Buckner performed economic and statistical analysis related to certain aspects of the Alabama Department of Human Resources' administration of the foster care system, including over-institutionalization of children in intensive residential facilities.
• Testifying expert on behalf of AIN in DaVita Inc. v. Associates in Nephrology (AIN) in their antitrust counterclaims (in a breach of contract case) concerning issues of market definition, market power, theory of harm, and competitive effects of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements between the parties.

Monopolization/exclusionary conduct

• Served as lead consulting expert on behalf of Epic in Epic Games v. Google concerning the monopolization of app distribution on Android smartphones. Supported testifying expert on issues of market definition, market power, theory of harm, and competitive effects.
• Served as a lead consulting expert on behalf of the NFL in the National Football League Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation. Supported testifying expert on theory of harm and the competitive effects of the alleged conduct.
• Served as a lead consulting expert on behalf of Veeva in Veeva Systems Inc. v. IQVIA Inc., concerning the monopolization of data and data management software for pharmaceutical companies. Supported testifying expert on issues of market definition, market power, theory of harm, and competitive effects.
• On behalf of United Therapeutics and Smiths Medical in Sandoz Inc. and Raregen, LLC v. United Therapeutics Corporation and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc., provided consulting and expert support regarding issues of market definition, market power, competitive effects, and irreparable harm in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from enforcing allegedly exclusionary contracts.
• On behalf of American Express in American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation II, provided consulting and expert support. Analyzed Amex’s market power and the competitive effects of Amex’s agreements with merchants.
• On behalf of Apple in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., provided consulting and expert support. Analyzed the extent of Qualcomm’s market power in modem chipsets, and the competitive effects of Qualcomm’s conduct.

Mergers

• On behalf of Willis Towers Watson (WTW), assisted at all stages of merger review in connection with the $30 billion proposed merger between Aon and WTW, including preliminary antitrust risk assessment, Hart-Scott-Rodino–related submissions, and responses to the DOJ's second request to multiple advocacy submissions and presentations to the DOJ and the Canadian Competition Bureau.
• Conducted analysis of the competitive effects of consolidation in Medicare Part D on premiums and supported DOJ’s expert in a Tunney Act proceeding concerning the proposed remedy of CVS’s proposed acquisition of Aetna.

Price fixing

• In In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, supported testifying expert in estimating damages on behalf of plaintiffs, who allege the four largest US-based Class I railroads conspired to increase the price of rail freight transportation services in the United States by imposing unreasonable fuel surcharges.
• In In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, supported testifying expert in estimating damages on behalf of several direct action plaintiffs that included large electronic component distributors and contract manufacturers, including Avnet. A California federal jury returned a verdict for Avnet in the amount of $89.2 million.