IMPLICATOR
The Justice Department has been investigating for nearly a year whether Andreessen Horowitz created an unlawful board interlock through investments in Databricks and Fivetran, Bloomberg disclosed Monday in an exclusive. The case centers on Ben Horowitz’s Databricks seat and Martin Casado’s Fivetran seat, with prosecutors examining whether the separate a16z partners function as the firm’s agents on competing boards. A finding under Section 8 of the Clayton Act could require a director to leave a board or the firm to surrender appointment rights, even without proof of competitive harm.
The department has made no final decision, and the investigation may end without action. The Justice Department and Databricks declined to comment. Andreessen Horowitz and Fivetran did not respond to requests for comment.
What Changed
- The Justice Department has investigated Andreessen Horowitz's Databricks and Fivetran board seats for nearly a year.
- The inquiry asks whether Ben Horowitz and Martin Casado act as a16z agents on competing-company boards.
- DOJ's earlier campaign involved at least 13 directors from 10 boards by March 9, 2023.
- Legal analyses say the deputization theory remains narrow, fact-specific and dependent on proof of competition and control.
AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. More on our AI guidelines.
The seats survived a merger
Horowitz remains a Databricks director. Casado remains on Fivetran’s board and previously served on the dbt Labs board. Fivetran announced its all-stock merger with dbt Labs on October 13, 2025, and completed it on June 1, 2026. The department reviewed that transaction for several months and cleared it without conditions.
The separate interlock investigation opened around the same period and continued after the merger closed.
To bring a Section 8 case, the Justice Department would have to prove that Databricks and Fivetran are legal competitors whose competitive sales exceed Section 8’s thresholds and that Horowitz and Casado acted as a16z’s agents rather than independent corporate fiduciaries. Neither point has been publicly established in this inquiry.
The rule can reach investment firms
Section 8 bars a person from serving as an officer or director of competing corporations, subject to limited exemptions. The Clayton Act defines a person to include corporations, which supports the government’s view that an investment firm can serve through its representatives. Critics answer that only a natural person can actually sit as a director.
Federal guidance issued in June 2019 says a firm can create an interlock by appointing separate people as its agents on rival boards. Once the government proves the statutory elements, it does not also have to demonstrate actual damage to competition.
Stay ahead of the curve
Strategic AI news from San Francisco. No hype, no "AI will change everything" throat clearing. Just what moved, who won, and why it matters. Daily at 6am PST.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
In October 2022, seven directors left five company boards after Justice Department concerns. The announced matters included representatives of Prosus and Thoma Bravo. No company or director admitted liability. By March 9, 2023, the department said its campaign had unwound or prevented interlocks involving at least 13 directors from 10 boards. The usual resolution was a resignation or surrendered appointment right.
Know someone who'd find this useful? ✉️ Email it to a friend in one click, or they can subscribe free here.
A separate Federal Trade Commission proposed consent action in August 2023 would have barred Quantum Energy Partners from taking an EQT board seat in a $5.2 billion transaction. The agency approved the final order later in 2023, concluding its first Section 8 case in 40 years. That matter involved direct competitors in Appalachian natural gas and restrictions on information exchange.
The agency theory has limits
An August 2023 analysis in the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Magazine concluded that the deputization theory has weak grounding in the statute’s language and history. It identified three meaningful court treatments. Each was narrow or turned on facts particular to the dispute.
A May 25, 2023 analysis by Cooley lawyers reached a related conclusion. The Justice Department’s resignation campaign had produced no judicial decisions, they wrote, leaving little precedent for an expanded theory. Whether companies are actual competitors and whether directors are agents of an investor both require case-specific evidence.
In the 2003 Reading International case, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York examined competing movie-theater companies and required proof of control. Affiliation or employment alone was not enough. It said directors must act as “puppets or instrumentalities of the corporation’s will.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Justice Department investigating?
The department is examining whether Andreessen Horowitz created an unlawful board interlock through Ben Horowitz's Databricks seat and Martin Casado's Fivetran seat.
Has the Justice Department found a violation?
No final decision has been made, and the investigation may end without action. The inquiry has not publicly established qualifying competition or that the two partners acted as a16z's agents.
Why can separate directors create one interlock?
Federal guidance says a firm can create an interlock by appointing different people as its agents on rival boards. Critics argue the statute reaches only natural people who actually serve as directors.
How has Section 8 been enforced before?
By March 9, 2023, the Justice Department said its campaign had unwound or prevented interlocks involving at least 13 directors from 10 boards, usually through resignations or surrendered appointment rights.
What would the government have to prove?
It would have to establish that Databricks and Fivetran are legal competitors above Section 8's sales thresholds and that the a16z partners acted as firm agents rather than independent corporate fiduciaries.
AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. More on our AI guidelines.
Marcus Schuler
Editor-in-Chief and founder of Implicator.ai. Former ARD correspondent and senior broadcast journalist with 10+ years covering tech. Writes daily briefings on policy and market developments. Based in San Francisco. E-mail: editor@implicator.ai
