Michael Edmund Jacobs

Partner, Santa Fe

Since joining Hinkle Shanor, Michael has represented plaintiffs and defendants in collective and class action litigation in New Mexico and elsewhere. He worked extensively for the plaintiffs in a nationwide antitrust class action in Canada against a major software developer, which resulted in a CAD $517 million settlement. He also represented a Fortune 500 enterprise software developer in connection with a two-plus year antitrust investigation by a Latin American competition agency.

Prior to his time with the firm, Michael was an attorney-advisor to the Fiscalía Nacional Económica, Chile’s antitrust enforcement authority and one of the leading competition agencies in the region. He was directly involved in many of the agency’s highest profile cartel and abuse of dominance matters, and he played a leading role in various policy initiatives. His work on competition issues involving minority shareholdings and interlocking directorates provided the foundation for legislation in Chile prohibiting competitor interlocks.

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Class Actions
  • Antitrust/Competition

Past Employment

  • Fiscalía Nacional Económica (Chilean National Economic Prosecutor’s Office), Attorney-Advisor, 2012–2013
  • Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Attorney/Partner, 2002–2011
  • Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, 2001–2002
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN, 2000-2001
  • Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, 1998-2000


  • Análisis económico del derecho, Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Derecho
  • Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.
    • J.D., magna cum laude (1998)
    • Law Review: Law & Policy in International Business, Executive Editor
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
    • M.A., Latin American History (1995)
  • University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
    • B.A., History (1993)
    • Honors: With High Honors


  • English (Primary)
  • Spanish

Bar Admissions

  • State of Minnesota, 2001
  • State of New Mexico, 2016
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Professional Associations and Memberships

  • ABA, Section of Antitrust Law


  • Enforcement of Chile’s Ban on Competitor Interlocks, (ABA Antitrust Law Section: International Committee), March 2022
  • “Enforcing Chile’s Ban on Competitor Interlock: The FNE’s First Actions Under Article 3-d) of DL 211”, Investigaciones CeCo (enero, 2022)
  • “El enforcement relativo a las participaciones minoritarias en la regulación norteamericana de competencia,” and other selections, Reflexiones Sobre el Derecho de la Libre Competencia: Informes en Derecho solicitados por la Fiscalía Nacional Económica (2017)
  • “Combating Anticompetitive Interlocks: Section 8 of the Clayton Act as a Template for Small and Emerging Economies,” Fordham Int’l Law Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2014
  • “Chile: National Economic Prosecutor’s Office,” Global Competition Review, Antitrust Review of the Americas 2014 (co-author)

Presentations & Interviews

  • Interview in Diario Financiero, “Michael Jacobs, experto en interlocking: ‘La teoría de la FNE parece razonable’” (January 15, 2022)
  • Panel participant, “Recent FRAND Disputes Globally,” OxFirst 6th IP and Competition Forum – The Future of FRAND (June 23, 2021)
  • Panel participant, “Pro-Sys v. Microsoft: Anatomy of a Class Action Trial,” CBA Competition Law Fall Conference, Ottawa, Ontario (October 17, 2019)
  • Commentator, 19th Annual Loyola Antitrust Colloquium, Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies, Chicago, Illinois (April 26, 2019)
  • “Antitrust Damages Litigation: Lessons from the North American Experience,” Fiscalía Nacional Económica, Santiago, Chile (December 5, 2017)
  • “Chile’s Competition Act Reforms from a North American Perspective,” Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile (December 1, 2017)
  • “Interlocking Directorates: U.S. Experience Under Section 8 of the Clayton Act,” FNE Día de la Competencia, Santiago, Chile (November 17, 2016)
  • “An Insider’s View into a Foreign Competition Agency,” Minnesota State Bar Association, Antitrust Law Section, Minneapolis (April 24, 2014)
  • “Looking Towards the Future: Thoughts on Competition Enforcement and Protecting Consumers within Chile’s Institutional Design,” FNE Día de la Competencia, Santiago, Chile (November 5, 2013)
  • “Antitrust Damages Litigation: Compensation & Deterrence,” VIII Jornada de Libre Competencia, Centro de Libre Competencia, Pontificia Universidad Católica, Santiago, Chile (October 25, 2013)
  • “Abusos a la competencia en Internet: Ámbito digital y sus efectos en la innovación,” Seminario Protección de la Competencia y la Innovación en el Ámbito Digital y Online, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile (March 25, 2013)
  • “Experiencia en EE.UU. en el ámbito de la protección de la competencia en los mercados de tecnología y en línea,” Programa Propiedad Intelectual y Derecho de la Competencia en el Ambiente Digital, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile (October 24, 2012)
  • Turner et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., D. Colo. (ongoing): representing a nationwide FLSA collective of more than 7,000 opt-ins alleging off-the-clock work, as well as several hundred former collective members in arbitrations throughout the country.
  • Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., British Columbia Supr. Ct. (2018): consultant on a precedent-setting Canada-wide indirect purchaser class action that raised many novel legal, factual and procedural issues, and that resulted in a nationwide CAD $517 million settlement.
  • Comes v. Microsoft Corp., Polk Co., Iowa Dist. Ct (2007): core plaintiffs’ litigation team member in an Iowa indirect purchaser antitrust lawsuit that resulted in a $179.9 million settlement after a two-and-a-half-month trial.
  • Gordon v. Microsoft Corp., Hennepin Co., Minn. Dist. Ct. (2004): core plaintiffs’ litigation team member in a Minnesota indirect purchaser antitrust lawsuit that resulted in a $174.5 million settlement after a six-week trial.