Market Data 
Nvidia, a dominant player in the booming world of artificial intelligence, said Wednesday that it’s “happy to answer any questions” that regulators may have about the Silicon Valley chipmaker’s business.
“Nvidia’s best approach right now is to remain open and fully cooperative with the DOJ,” Jason Chung, a lawyer and clinical assistant professor at New York University’s School of Professional Studies, told Business Insider.
Bloomberg, citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter, reported Tuesday that the department sent Nvidia and other tech companies subpoenas in connection to an investigation into whether the AI-chip giant violated antitrust laws.
Nvidia denied that report in a statement Wednesday, saying the publicly traded company “inquired” with the Justice Department and did not receive a subpoena.
“Nvidia wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, and customers can choose whatever solution is best for them,” a Nvidia spokesperson said. “We have inquired with the US Department of Justice and have not been subpoenaed. Nonetheless, we are happy to answer any questions regulators may have about our business.”
In a report on Wednesday, Bloomberg, citing one person with direct knowledge of the matter, said that the department sent Nvidia what’s known as a civil investigative demand seeking information about the company’s $700 million acquisition of the Israeli AI startup Run:ai and other elements of its business. The outlet added that the document demand is commonly referred to as a subpoena.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment by BI.
Nvidia leadership should prepare for a possible antitrust lawsuit
In any case, Nvidia brass should be preparing for a Justice Department antitrust lawsuit and doing whatever possible to cooperate with the federal agency’s investigation, legal experts said.
Chung, a tech-law expert, told BI that getting a civil investigative demand “signals that the investigation is in a fact-finding stage.”
A civil investigative demand is a tool reserved for certain agencies, such as the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, to gather information early in civil investigations, he said.
“Nvidia should ensure clear, transparent communication and trust its legal team to guide interactions. Cooperating shows good faith and may help mitigate potential concerns,” Chung said. “At the same time, it’s essential for the legal team to thoroughly review all documents and communications to prepare for any possible outcomes.”
Additionally, Chung said, the AI-chip maker should avoid any actions that could be perceived as “obstructive.”
“This means responding to the CID promptly and accurately while refraining from any conduct that could be seen as influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence,” Chung said. “Internally, it’s important to continue business as usual while maintaining compliance with legal guidelines.”
George Hay, a professor at Cornell Law School and former chief economist for the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said that a civil investigative demand is a request for documents or other information, while a subpoena typically means a request to appear for a deposition.
“It’s probably too soon in the investigation for that, so a CID is more plausible,” the antitrust-law expert told BI.
Still, Hay said, at this point, Nvidia should be worried about the investigation, but it doesn’t mean an antitrust lawsuit is inevitable.
Just because there’s an investigation does not mean that the company has done something illegal, Hay pointed out.
“What happens after that depends entirely on the results of the investigation,” Hay said.
Chung added that the reported issuing of a civil investigative demand “shows the DOJ is seriously gathering information.”
“It’s smart for any legal team to think ahead and be ready for whatever might come, whether that’s a lawsuit or something else,” he said.
Nvidia, Chung said, “should definitely be prepared for the possibility of an antitrust lawsuit, especially considering how the DOJ has gone after other big tech companies, like Google and Apple.”
“Preparation for any potential escalation should still focus on gathering strong internal documentation, reviewing market practices, and ensuring compliance with antitrust regulations,” Chung added.
“Involving external legal experts and advisors to assess market strategies remains a prudent step,” he said.
