Competition Law International (CLI)
About Competition Law International
Competition Law International is the journal of the Antitrust Section of the IBA. It provides an insight into international competition law issues with articles that are of practical interest. Published twice a year, the journal reaches over 1,400 competition law practitioners worldwide.
Recent articles have included:
- The United States Federal Trade Commission: continuity and challenges
- The new French competition law enforcement regime
- Antitrust in China - a constantly evolving subject
- Antitrust issues involving acquisitions of financially distressed companies
Subscriptions
Members of the Antitrust Section receive Competition Law International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 1817 5708
Pricing: £88 per issue
£176 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions
This article examines the investigation launched by the Brazilian Competition Authority (CADE) into the Soy Moratorium, a multi-stakeholder agreement aimed at curbing deforestation. The investigation is a key development in Brazil’s treatment of sustainability agreements under competition law. The case stems from allegations that the Moratorium operates as a coordinated refusal to purchase soy from non-compliant producers. CADE’s preliminary view characterised the arrangement as a potential buyer cartel, prompting sweeping preventive measures later partially suspended by Brazilian courts. This article compares Brazil’s approach with emerging international guidance, underscoring regulatory uncertainty and the need for clearer CADE standards on environmental cooperation.
Read this article online Download the PDF
China’s merger control regime is undergoing significant transformation, with the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) increasingly aligning enforcement with national and industrial policy objectives. Recent reforms have streamlined procedures, while proactive reviews, tailored remedies and heightened scrutiny of strategic sectors, are creating challenges and opportunities deal parties and industry players. Through case studies and global comparisons, this article examines how China’s approach is evolving, offering commentary for dealmakers and policymakers navigating the country’s competition law framework.
Read this article online Download the PDF
In this article, the authors propose some guiding principles to determine FRAND compliant app store fees. The authors argue that FRAND app store fees should reflect the incremental value of the services they offer, not the value of access to the market itself. They should also account for the value provided to app stores by hosting apps, reflecting the two-way exchange. Finally, they should not reflect the value of network effects, which is the source of market power for the gatekeepers. Such a price ensures that the gatekeeper and app developer are both fairly rewarded for the value of their services and is the most direct way to ensure both fairness and contestability in app distribution.
Read this article online Download the PDF
In this article, the authors propose a foreseeability-based framework for analysing algorithmic collusion under Indian competition law. As pricing and optimisation algorithms increasingly learn from and respond to one another, alignment may arise without human communication, challenging traditional tests for inferring anticompetitive agreements under Section 3 of the Indian Competition Act. The authors argue that liability should hinge on whether firms could reasonably anticipate alignment based on system design choices. By shifting the evidentiary focus from intent to the predictable behaviour of technical systems, this article offers a method for determining when algorithmic coordination should be considered anticompetitive.
Read this article online Download the PDF
This article examines the state of the art of damages actions following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgment in Case C-21/24 CP v Nissan (‘Nissan’), which set a new precedent as regards to determining the starting point of the limitation period for damages actions based on antitrust infringement decisions of national authorities that have not yet become final. Although the judgment in Nissan offers greater protection to injured parties and increases certainty when exercising the right to compensation, the real effectiveness of damages actions will also depend on the ability of national legal systems to remove other procedural obstacles, to harmonise national regimes, to make costly litigation sustainable and to coordinate the interaction between public and private enforcement.
Read this article online Download the PDF
Portugal has undergone a profound shift in competition enforcement in recent years, marked by more assertive public enforcement, most notably in the context of labour markets. In parallel, the emergence of class actions seeking large damages – driven by a permissive procedural regime – has placed new pressures on public enforcement, particularly leniency. While such claims risk undermining incentives to self-report, labour market cases appear less exposed to follow-on litigation, which likely explains why Portugal’s leniency regime is not as dormant as elsewhere. This article assesses these developments and considers how public and private enforcement could be better aligned going forward.
Read this article online Download the PDF
The digitalisation of markets and the rise of algorithmic pricing tools have introduced new challenges for competition law, particularly in assessing when parallel conduct may amount to technologically facilitated coordination. This article examines how EU and Turkish competition authorities have adapted their analytical and enforcement approaches to address algorithmic interactions capable of producing coordinated outcomes without explicit communication. By drawing on case law, policy papers and enforcement priorities, it demonstrates a growing recognition that algorithmic tools and automated market responses require more nuanced frameworks to preserve effective competition in digitalised markets.
Read this article online Download the PDF
This article argues that advances in AI will require a fundamental shift in how competition law, particularly Article 101 TFEU, conceptualises information exchange. Drawing on cybernetics and information theory, it reframes ‘agreements’ as measurable exchanges of mutual information between systems. As AI-driven markets become black boxes, intuitions about what it means to ‘agree’ will no longer apply. Enforcement will depend on statistical analysis of machine data flows. Shannon’s concept of information as entropy will be key to how authorities develop the technology needed to detect information exchange and apply the so-called ‘Bob Test’ in a fully algorithmic marketplace.
Read this article online Download the PDF
- Volume 21 Number 1, June 2025
- Volume 20 Number 2, December 2024
- Volume 20 Number 1, July 2024
- Volume 19 Number 2, November 2023
- Volume 19 Number 1, June 2023
- Volume 18 Number 2, November 2022
- Volume 18 Number 1, June 2022
- Volume 17 Number 2, December 2021
- Volume 17 Number 1, June 2021
- Volume 16 Number 2, December 2020
- Volume 16 Number 1, October 2020
- Volume 15 Number 2, December 2019
- Volume 15 Number 1, May 2019
How to order
Members of the Antitrust Section receive Competition Law International as part of their membership. PDF-only subscriptions are also available to non-members. Please email editor@int-bar.org to order.
ISSN 1817 5708
Pricing: £88 per issue
£176 per year, two issues per year
Five per cent agency discount available on annual subscriptions
Review books
Please send details of books for review to editor@int-bar.org.
Guidelines for authors
Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright: The IBA holds copyright in all articles, newsletters and papers published by them. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any IBA publication or any part of an IBA publication, permission must be requested in writing from the Managing Editor at editor@int-bar.org, and due acknowledgment given.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in journals, newsletters and papers are those of the contributors, and not necessarily those of the International Bar Association