By admin 
The investigators’ outreach has targeted a wide array of stakeholders, including individuals who work within or advise healthcare businesses that must interface with Epic’s proprietary software. These sources indicate that the FTC is particularly interested in two distinct but overlapping areas of Epic’s operations: its restrictive labor practices and its alleged use of market leverage to stifle technological competition. The intensity of the inquiry has reportedly ramped up in recent months, with several state attorneys general joining the effort, signaling a coordinated multi-jurisdictional look at the Wisconsin-based giant.
Epic Systems, founded in 1979 by Judith Faulkner in a Madison basement, has grown from a small software startup into a multi-billion-dollar empire. Today, the company controls the electronic medical records for approximately 57% of all inpatient hospital beds in the United States. Perhaps even more staggering is the reach of its data repository; an estimated 82% of Americans have at least one medical record stored within an Epic system. This massive footprint has translated into explosive financial growth, with the company’s annual revenue climbing from $3.3 billion in 2020 to $5.7 billion in 2024. Unlike its primary competitors, Epic remains privately held and has famously avoided growth through acquisitions, preferring to build its own integrated modules—a strategy that has led to a highly cohesive but often criticized "walled garden" ecosystem.
One primary line of the FTC’s inquiry focuses on Epic’s employment agreements, specifically its use of highly restrictive non-compete clauses and stock purchase agreements. For years, former employees and rival firms have alleged that Epic utilizes these contracts to prevent talent from migrating to competitors or startups. These agreements often bar employees from working for a vast list of healthcare entities that Epic deems to be direct or indirect competitors. A recent lawsuit filed by Veeva Systems, a clinical trial management software firm, highlighted these tensions. Veeva alleged that Epic’s non-compete list was expanded in a retaliatory fashion to prevent Veeva from hiring Epic’s specialized staff. While that specific case was dismissed due to standing issues, the underlying grievances regarding Epic’s "iron-clad" control over its workforce remain a focal point for federal regulators interested in labor market mobility.
The second, and perhaps more impactful, line of inquiry concerns "data blocking" and the use of market leverage to exclude rival software vendors. In the modern healthcare landscape, data is the lifeblood of innovation. Third-party developers creating specialized tools for population health, patient engagement, or AI-driven diagnostics require access to the patient data stored within Epic’s EHR to function. Investigators are reportedly looking into whether Epic uses its position as the primary platform for major hospital systems to unfairly block these rivals.
The 2025 lawsuit filed by CureIS Healthcare provides a roadmap for these allegations. CureIS, which develops software for managed care organizations, alleged that Epic systematically blocked its access to data held within hospital-owned instances of Epic software. The complaint describes an "Epic-first" policy, where the vendor allegedly pressures hospital customers to abandon third-party tools in favor of Epic’s own internal modules, even if those modules are still under development or inferior in functionality. To illustrate the scale of this ambition, CureIS cited an internal Epic brochure titled "Products You Can Replace with Epic," which listed over 300 third-party products that Epic intended to displace. This strategy, critics argue, creates a monopolistic environment where innovation is dictated by a single vendor rather than market demand.
Another high-profile legal battle involves Particle Health, a data exchange platform. Particle Health filed an antitrust suit alleging that Epic used "pretextual" security concerns to cut off its access to patient records. Epic countered by claiming that Particle’s customers were inappropriately accessing records, a defense that underscores the complex tension between data security and data liquidity. However, the FTC’s interest suggests that the government is looking beyond individual disputes to determine if there is a systemic pattern of using "security" as a shield for anticompetitive behavior.
Epic has consistently defended its practices, positioning itself as a leader in "interoperability"—the ability of different systems to share information. In statements regarding the inquiry, Epic spokespeople emphasized the company’s role in connecting to national record-sharing networks and its recent efforts to standardize the exchange of diagnostic images. They maintain that the company does not engage in anticompetitive behavior and that its primary focus remains the seamless support of patient care. Despite these claims, the company’s "UserWeb"—a proprietary portal for software documentation and training—remains a point of contention. Individual lawsuits, such as one filed by former employee Andrea Hull, allege that Epic uses access to this portal as a tool of control, effectively preventing professionals from performing their duties at new employers if those employers are on Epic’s "competitor" list.
The timing of the FTC probe is particularly noteworthy given the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence in healthcare. As hospitals look to integrate AI to predict patient outcomes or streamline administrative tasks, the importance of the underlying data layer has never been higher. If one company controls the "digital backbone" of the majority of American hospitals, it also holds the keys to the data necessary to train and run these AI models. Regulators are increasingly concerned that if Epic is allowed to favor its own AI tools or restrict the data access of third-party AI developers, it could stifle a generation of medical breakthroughs.
The internal atmosphere at Epic has also seen recent shifts. Several high-ranking technology leaders, including Sumit Rana—who was widely considered a potential successor to Judith Faulkner—and AI leader Seth Hain, departed the company this summer. While these departures may be personal or unrelated to the investigation, they occur at a moment of peak external pressure. Current and former employees are increasingly being named in private litigation, and some have reportedly been approached by federal investigators for interviews.
Academic and industry experts have voiced growing alarm over the "Epic monopoly." A recent study in PLOS Digital Health, titled "A problem of Epic proportion," argued that Epic’s dominance has reached a level that requires urgent government intervention. The study posited that health information should be treated as a public resource rather than proprietary corporate property. It warned that allowing a single vendor to dictate the digital terms of healthcare innovation could lead to higher costs, reduced patient choice, and a slower pace of technological adoption.
The FTC’s move against Epic fits into a broader pattern under the current administration’s "New Brandeis" approach to antitrust enforcement. Led by Chair Lina Khan, the agency has shown a willingness to challenge the dominance of "platform" companies that control essential digital infrastructure. Just as the FTC has scrutinized Amazon’s control over its marketplace and Meta’s influence over social data, it is now turning its attention to the platform that holds the most sensitive data of all: the American medical record.
As the probe continues, the healthcare industry remains in a state of high anticipation. If the FTC moves forward with a formal complaint, it could seek to force Epic to change its data-sharing policies, dismantle its restrictive non-compete structures, or even spin off certain business units to ensure a level playing field. For now, Epic continues to operate as the central nervous system for the nation’s largest health systems, but the growing chorus of legal and regulatory challenges suggests that the era of its unchecked expansion may be facing its most significant test to date. The outcome of this investigation will likely define the future of healthcare innovation, determining whether the digital health landscape remains a closed ecosystem or opens into a more competitive and transparent marketplace.
