Will the DOJ file a formal antitrust complaint against NVIDIA by December 31, 2026?

The complete absence of DOJ or antitrust language in Q4 earnings is mildly de-risking — if NVIDIA's counsel expected imminent formal action, we would likely see more cautious legal language or risk factor updates. However, DOJ investigations operate on their own timeline independent of corporate earnings cycles. The legally binding subpoenas remain outstanding, congressional pressure from Warren/Wyden/Blumenthal continues, and the Run:AI acquisition scrutiny is unresolved. The Groq deal ($13B licensing + team acquisition) introduces a new vector for DOJ scrutiny: eliminating an independent inference competitor while already under investigation for anti-competitive bundling is exactly the type of conduct that strengthens an antitrust case. The NVLink Fusion interoperability announcement partially offsets this by demonstrating willingness to open the ecosystem, but DOJ investigations focus on past and ongoing conduct, not forward commitments. With 10 months until the December 31 deadline and DOJ investigations typically taking 12-24+ months from subpoena to complaint, the timeline is tight but not impossible. The prior 19% remains approximately correct.

I weight the Groq acquisition more heavily than my peers. NVIDIA is acquiring a competitor's inference technology for $13B while already under DOJ investigation for exclusive deals and bundling. This is precisely the pattern that invites enforcement action — demonstrating continued consolidation behavior during an active investigation. Jensen comparing it to Mellanox is telling; the Mellanox acquisition itself attracted SAMR anti-monopoly findings. The congressional pressure angle is also relevant: Senators Warren, Wyden, and Blumenthal urged FTC/DOJ scrutiny in February 2026, and a $13B competitor acquisition weeks later gives them concrete ammunition. The NVLink Fusion co-opting strategy is strategically smart but may be viewed cynically by DOJ as 'embrace and extend' rather than genuine interoperability. The political dynamics remain the biggest wildcard — the current administration's tech antitrust posture is uncertain. The Anthropic $10B investment, while not directly antitrust-relevant, contributes to a narrative of NVIDIA consolidating the AI ecosystem through financial relationships, which could strengthen the 'exclusive dealing' prong of any complaint.

The base rate for DOJ antitrust complaints following subpoena issuance provides the anchor. Historically, not all subpoena-based investigations result in formal complaints — many conclude with consent decrees, settlements, or closures. The committee's prediction context noted potential outcomes include consent decree, Run:AI divestiture, behavioral remedies, and fines — all of which would resolve this market NO. The question specifically asks about a 'formal antitrust complaint' which is the most aggressive enforcement outcome. The absence of any new enforcement escalation in Q4 earnings, combined with the NVLink Fusion announcement demonstrating interoperability, suggests NVIDIA may be proactively positioning for a negotiated resolution rather than a formal complaint. However, DOJ investigations are opaque and the absence of disclosure does not indicate investigation status. The political economy matters: NVIDIA is central to US AI competitiveness, which creates countervailing pressure against aggressive antitrust action. The Groq deal is a modest upward risk but structured as licensing rather than a traditional acquisition, potentially reducing regulatory exposure.

The Q4 earnings call contained zero mentions of DOJ, antitrust, or regulatory investigations — a notable absence given the Regulatory Reader's ELEVATED classification. This silence is informative but ambiguous: it could indicate (a) no material change in investigation status, (b) legal counsel advising against voluntary disclosure, or (c) the company not considering it material enough for proactive discussion. The Groq deal adds a modest incremental risk — acquiring a competing inference technology company during an active antitrust investigation into bundling and exclusive deals is optically concerning. However, the deal structure (licensing + team rather than traditional acquisition) was likely designed to minimize regulatory friction. NVLink Fusion's interoperability announcement is a counterweight, demonstrating openness. Net effect: roughly neutral. The prior 19% aggregate properly reflected the 10-month timeline against a DOJ investigation that typically takes 12-24+ months from subpoena to complaint. No new data materially changes this timeline calculus.

Anchoring on the investigation-to-complaint timeline: DOJ issued legally binding subpoenas (escalated from questionnaires), which indicates serious investigative intent but not imminent filing. The typical DOJ antitrust investigation timeline from subpoena to complaint is 12-24+ months, and we are approximately 6-12 months into the subpoena phase based on available information. For a formal complaint by December 31, 2026, the DOJ would need to complete its investigation, draft the complaint, and obtain internal approvals within the next 10 months. This is possible but on the faster end of typical timelines. The Q4 earnings data is essentially orthogonal to this market — DOJ timelines are driven by investigative findings, political priorities, and internal DOJ processes, not by the target company's quarterly financial performance. The Groq deal is a minor consideration; the NVLink Fusion interoperability stance is a minor consideration in the other direction. I shade slightly below the prior given the absence of escalation signals.

I assign lower confidence because the key variables — DOJ internal deliberations, political dynamics, and the specific timing of any enforcement action — are fundamentally unobservable from earnings data. The Q4 call provides essentially no signal on DOJ intent or timeline. What it does provide: (1) the Groq acquisition creates a concrete new fact pattern that DOJ could incorporate into an expanded complaint (competitor elimination in inference), (2) the Anthropic $10B investment could be characterized as 'pay to play' vendor financing that creates exclusive dependencies, and (3) NVIDIA's market dominance is clearly intensifying (Q4 DC revenue +22% QoQ, approaching $250B annualized run rate), which strengthens the market power element of any antitrust case. Against these, NVLink Fusion demonstrates interoperability willingness, and the administration's actual tech antitrust priorities remain unclear. I shade slightly above the prior 19% because the Groq deal and Anthropic investment provide additional facts for a potential complaint, even though no new enforcement actions were disclosed.

No new DOJ-related information in Q4 earnings. The investigation remains in the subpoena/information-gathering phase with no disclosed escalation. Groq deal adds modest consolidation risk but is structured as licensing to reduce regulatory exposure. NVLink Fusion's interoperability is a proactive response to bundling concerns. The 10-month timeline to December 31, 2026 is tight for a formal complaint given typical DOJ investigation timelines. Maintaining near the prior probability with a very slight downward adjustment given the absence of escalation.

The prior 19% probability was well-calibrated. The Q4 earnings update provides minimal new information for this regulatory market — DOJ antitrust investigations are driven by their own investigative timeline, political dynamics, and the strength of evidence gathered, not by the target's quarterly financials. The Groq deal is the most relevant new data point, as it demonstrates continued consolidation behavior during an active investigation. However, the deal's licensing structure (rather than outright acquisition) suggests NVIDIA's legal team is managing regulatory risk. The probability remains in the 17-22% range as specified in the context update.

Holding at the prior probability. The Q4 earnings call's silence on DOJ matters is the expected outcome — companies under investigation rarely volunteer information beyond required disclosures. No new 8-K filings disclosed enforcement actions. The Groq deal creates modest additional scrutiny risk but the NVLink Fusion interoperability announcement partially offsets it. The congressional pressure (Warren/Wyden/Blumenthal) predated Q4 and remains unchanged. The fundamental constraint is the DOJ's own timeline: 10 months from now to a formal complaint filing requires relatively aggressive prosecution, which is possible but not the modal outcome. Most DOJ antitrust investigations this complex result in negotiated settlements or consent decrees rather than formal complaints.