Tag results for 'Competition Law'
Roche International: a leading case in Uruguay in relation to ‘Netflix-style’ agreements in the pharmaceutical industry
This article reviews a landmark ruling issued by the Uruguayan Administrative Litigation Court (TCA), which annulled a major penalty imposed on pharmaceutical company Roche International for allegedly abusing its dominant position through bundled sales to the leading public medications buyer FNR. The TCA found no anti-competitive conduct, highlighting FNR’s countervailing power and the legitimacy of these subscription-based ‘Netflix-style’ agreements. The ruling clarifies key concepts under Uruguayan competition legislation, including the legitimacy of certain business models and the limits of enforcement faculties of the national competition authority. The case sets a significant precedent for the pharmaceutical sector, public procurement and beyond.
Released on Aug 15, 2025
Merger control in Ukraine: positive developments for global deals despite wartime challenges
This article outlines the recent reforms in Ukraine’s merger control regime, including key legislative changes introduced in 2024 under the first stage of antitrust reform. These updates – such as revised notification thresholds, streamlined rules for minority acquisitions, and clearer JV classifications – aim to reduce the regulatory burden for global transactions. The article also examines the quasi-FDI screening performed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, wartime enforcement trends, and the growing alignment with EU standards. Finally, it offers insights into the second stage of reform and the implications for cross-border deals involving Ukrainian nexus.
Released on Aug 15, 2025
Saudi Arabia’s draft guidelines on vertical and horizontal agreements: aligning competition law with international standards
This article provides one of the first English-language legal analyses of the draft Guidelines on Vertical and Horizontal Agreements issued by the Saudi General Authority for Competition (GAC). While grounded in the existing Competition Law and its Implementing Regulations, the draft Guidelines aim to clarify the application of key legal provisions and introduce a structured analytical framework for assessing vertical and horizontal agreements. The article distinguishes clearly between the binding legal obligations under the law and the interpretive role of the Guidelines. It also examines how the Guidelines adopt an effects-based approach to exemption analysis under Article 8 and align with international enforcement trends.
Released on Aug 15, 2025
Barriers to competition under Mexican antitrust law
This article discusses the adequacy of powers of Mexican antitrust authorities to avoid and sanction barriers to competition. The author argues that under Mexican law, antitrust authorities have more discretionary powers to penalise barriers to competition than other wrongdoings such as vertical monopolistic practices and essential assets. In addition, this article describes how the authorities have enforced barriers to competition. The above will conclude that the discretion and the manner in which it has been interpreted might convert Mexican antitrust from a sanctionatory agency into a regulatory agency.
Released on Aug 14, 2025
Constitutional developments in Mexico – effects on the antitrust landscape
This article explores the recent developments in the Mexican antitrust regulatory framework with the upcoming abolishment of the current Mexican competition authorities, the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) and the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT, the regulator for the telecoms and broadcasting sectors), as a result of the constitutional reform regarding the so-called organic simplification reform that was published on 20 December 2024 (‘the Reform’). The authors briefly describe the history of Mexican competition law and review the Reform and the three initiatives to replace the Federal Economic Competition Law and create a new competition authority that have been published. In view of these initiatives and, more specifically, the third and last initiative which is expected to be enacted, the authors share their expectations as to how these changes may impact the enforcement of the Mexican competition regime.
Released on Aug 14, 2025
The Italian Antitrust Authority’s new guidelines on fine quantification criteria, antitrust compliance programmes and the leniency programme
The article deals with the new guidelines on the quantification of fines, compliance programmes and the new communication on leniency programmes adopted by the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) on 10 March 2025. The guidelines on fines establish transparent criteria for calculating penalties, with the aim of ensuring predictability and deterrence. Among the most significant changes are specific calculations for associations of undertakings and bid-rigging conducts, as well as a reduction in the percentage limits for the application of aggravating/mitigating circumstances. The guidelines on compliance programmes allow access to fine reductions only to companies that have adapted compliance programmes prior to an antitrust investigation, in order to encourage all companies to adopt a compliance programme. The notice on leniency programmes contains updates aimed at providing greater precision, harmonisation and clearer incentives for compliance and leniency.
Released on Aug 14, 2025
Editor’s note - Competition Law International - June 2025
Released on Aug 13, 2025
Android Auto: now that Bronner is dead, might innovation follow suit?
The recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Android Auto case represents a development in EU competition law, in relation to the essential facilities doctrine (EFD). The dispute originated from Google’s denial of interoperability between its Android Auto interface and Enel X’s JuicePass application – a refusal sanctioned by the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) as an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The indispensability test affirmed in the landmark Bronner decision, was reconsidered in Android Auto, where the CJEU opened the door to granting access to a dominant platform, which had been developed as an open model, if it makes a product more attractive to consumers. This article investigates the broader consequences of this doctrinal shift: the gradual weakening of the indispensability threshold in digital environments, the increasing regulatory burdens placed on dominant digital platforms, and the potential ramifications for innovation, investment incentives, and legal predictability.
Released on Aug 13, 2025
Most-favoured-nation clauses: the Brazilian hotels case analysed from the US law perspective
This article examines the antitrust treatment of most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in online travel platforms, focusing on Brazil’s prohibition of wide MFNs and contrasting it with certain US case law. The author explores theories of harm and potential efficiencies, highlighting the complexities of assessing MFNs in two-sided digital markets. Arguing against a blanket ban, the article advocates for a rule of reason approach grounded in evidence and economic analysis. Drawing from selected US precedent, it suggests that Brazilian authorities could adopt a more balanced framework that carefully weighs pro-competitive benefits against potential anti-competitive risks.
Released on Aug 13, 2025
When Djokovic faces competition: tennis and antitrust
This article explores questions about the fine line between necessary coordination in sports and anti-competitive behaviour. The discussion is based upon the antitrust lawsuit filed by the Professional Tennis Players Association, led by Novak Djokovic, against the four major professional tennis organisations. The plaintiffs allege the existence of a cartel-like structure that restricts competition, limits players’ earnings and autonomy, and imposes abusive disciplinary measures. By analysing the unique characteristics of the sports market and drawing parallels with other antitrust disputes, the article highlights the complexities of applying traditional competition law principles to the world of professional tennis.
Released on Aug 13, 2025
Competition Law International - June 2025
Released on Aug 13, 2025
Are employee acquisitions a gap in European merger control – Part II
This article builds on the discussion from the July 2024 edition of CLI regarding whether ‘acquihires’, such as Microsoft’s recruitment of Inflection AI’s staff, are a gap in European merger control. Since then, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) reviewed and cleared Microsoft/Inflection, affirming that acquihires can in certain circumstances fall under UK merger control. Meanwhile, the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Illumina/Grail has curtailed the jurisdiction of the European Commission under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, complicating EU oversight of acquihires. As a result, scrutiny of such transactions will likely shift to individual Member States, with Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, for example, having already examined the Microsoft/Inflection case.
Released on Feb 6, 2025
Sustainability on steroids: solving for speed, while encouraging competition
This article explores the intersection of sustainability initiatives and competition law. It highlights the pressures on businesses to address the serious effects of climate change and the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in authorising sustainability collaborations that might otherwise breach competition laws. The authors discuss potential competition law risks, the legal framework and authorisation process in Australia, and compare international approaches. They also suggest improvements to streamline the authorisation process, such as clarifying guidance, fast-tracking certain applications and considering class exemptions to better facilitate sustainability agreements.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
Competition Law International - December 2024
Released on Feb 5, 2025
Interview with Alejandra Palacios Prieto, Commissioner and President of Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE), 2013–2021
In this interview, Alejandra Palacios Prieto, former President of Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE), reflects on her tenure from 2013 to 2021. She discusses the challenges of promoting competition in Mexico, the importance of international cooperation, and her involvement with the International Competition Network (ICN). Alejandra emphasises the need for leadership changes within the ICN and highlights the operational limitations faced by the organisation. She also shares her vision for the future of antitrust regulation, offering valuable insights for competition law practitioners globally.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
The European Commission took the wrong path in its quest to find its ‘holy grail’ merger control threshold (the CJEU’s Illumina/GRAIL Judgment)
The Illumina/GRAIL Judgment blocks the European Commission’s (the ‘Commission’s) attempt to create a new power under the European Union merger law (EUMR) to de facto call-in and review any transaction it considers potentially problematic. A power that was not based on any specific provision of the EUMR but on the Commission incentivising referrals from EU Member States on the basis of Article 22 of the EUMR, regardless of the solicited Member State(s) being competent to review the transaction under their national law. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided to block the Commission’s creation of such quasi-unlimited review discretion after an extensive review of the EU Merger Regulations’ travaux préparatoires, which clearly showed that legal certainty was one of the key objectives that the EU legislature sought to achieve through the adoption of the EU Merger Regulations, among others, by designing the EU Merger Regulations around a jurisdictional test based on objective, clear and predictable bright-line turnover thresholds.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
One year of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation: important milestones
This article reviews the most relevant milestones achieved in the enforcement of the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) and their significance for the future. A year of notifications of concentrations has seen almost 100 transactions notified; the European Commission (‘the Commission’) adopted a decision on its first in-depth investigation of a concentration; the Commission conducted its first inspection under the FSR on the EU premises of a Chinese undertaking, giving rise to a ruling by the European Union General Court reaffirming its investigative powers. Finally, the Commission has published a document with initial clarifications on some key concepts.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
The ‘end of competition law’?
Recent developments suggest that we may be facing a paradigm shift in competition law enforcement. The increasing focus on industrial policy and the political urge to ‘integrate’ competition policy into it has lead to some serious concerns about the future of competition law. Does this mean that ‘competition law’ will be subjugated to ‘competition policy’? And if this ‘policy’ is integrated into industrial policy, what are the institutional consequences? In this opinion piece, the authors focus on developments within the European Union and Mexico, with the latter being a more extreme and Orwellian version of the former.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
Does the emergence of large ‘digital ecosystems’ require a new approach to plug perceived enforcement gaps?
The article discusses the calls for a new enforcement approach with respect to ‘digital ecosystems’. The authors argue that, from a competition law perspective, the concept of a digital ecosystem overlaps considerably with well-established concepts such as conglomerate firms and multi-sided platforms. In fact, on close scrutiny, the competition issues raised by digital ecosystems have already been encountered, which suggest that the tools to evaluate these phenomena already exist. Importantly, because business ecosystems can generate substantial consumer benefits, antitrust enforcement should be based on cogent economic theories of harm, supported by evidence that any harm outweighs efficiency benefits. There is, therefore, a danger of over enforcement where the ‘ecosystem’ label is used to lower intervention thresholds in respect of traditional competition concerns, diluting well-established limiting principles and increasing the probability of enforcement error.
Released on Feb 5, 2025
Editor’s note - Competition Law International - December 2024
Released on Feb 5, 2025
A new take on unilateral effects in South African cases?
Two recent merger decisions in South Africa seem to have ‘broken’ one of the fundamental rules of merger control. A merger-specific price increase was certain in both cases, but, equally so, neither merger changed pre-merger market structure or competitive constraints. South Africa now has two decisions saying a merger can substantially lessen or prevent competition even if it does not affect pre-merger competitive constraints. It is difficult to predict the impacts of these decisions.
Released on Aug 6, 2024
Are employee acquisitions a gap in European merger control?
Microsoft’s retention of the employees of Inflection AI has surfaced a debate on whether employee acquisitions represent an enforcement gap in European merger control laws. Leaving aside whether there exists robust data that could confirm the magnitude of any gap, do the jurisdictional rules of the EU Merger Regulation and the Enterprise Act permit the review of employee acquisitions (or ‘acquihires’)? This article shows that those laws could be invoked in exceptional situations, notably where the ‘acquihire’ has structural components and eliminates competition from the prior employer.
Released on Aug 6, 2024
Three stress tests for the future of European antitrust policy
European antitrust policy faces three critical stress tests as the new European Commission (2024–29) takes office. The first test challenges the EU’s Article 22 referral policy, which allows the Commission to review global mergers, raising concerns about extraterritoriality and legal principles. Predicted to fail, this test questions the Brussels Effect’s sustainability. The second test examines the Digital Markets Act’s (DMA) aim for regulatory dialogue over litigation in digital competition. Early investigations against major tech firms suggest a litigation-driven enforcement, risking the DMA’s intended regulatory approach. The third test evaluates artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, balancing competition and innovation. Success is possible if the EU adopts a practical, rational approach, recognising AI’s complex layers and promoting competition across the entire AI infrastructure. These stress tests present significant challenges and necessitate strategic responses to ensure robust and effective antitrust policies in Europe.
Released on Aug 5, 2024
Working hard or hardly working? Antitrust labour markets: an update from the United States
In this article, the authors trace the history, evolution and latest developments of the antitrust laws’ application to labour markets in the United States. Then, they describe common types of claims in labour markets cases, before analysing recent criminal and civil wage-fixing, no poach, and merger challenges. The authors conclude by providing actions companies should consider taking, as they seek to avoid finding themselves as a defendant in an antitrust–labour markets case.
Released on Aug 5, 2024
Unpacking PACCAR: the fallout from the judgment, and the consequences for litigation funding in the UK
Litigation funding has flourished in the UK in the last 20 years. It is now a central pillar of access to justice, especially in supporting group actions that frequently could not be pursued without third party funding. A 2023 judgment by the UK’s Supreme Court – R (PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (PACCAR) – and its subsequent judicial treatment has highlighted litigation funding’s importance to the litigation landscape in the UK. This article analyses the PACCAR judgment in the context of the development of the litigation funding market in the UK, and assesses how the courts and government are responding to its consequences.
Released on Aug 5, 2024
Alert mechanism for compliance risks for concentrations of undertakings – implementation and fine-tuning
In June 2022, China’s antitrust authority – the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) – started a pilot project establishing the alert mechanism for compliance risks for concentrations of undertakings. Relying on the corporate registration system, this mechanism aims to remind companies to assess whether a filing obligation is triggered under merger control rules. As such, it reduces the risk of failure to file reportable transactions and promotes fair market competition. After over a year of trial runs, the mechanism was fully set up and launched online. In February 2024, SAMR issued a notice to expand on the scenarios for the alerts, increase the accuracy of the alerts, and enhance related advocacy.
Released on Aug 5, 2024
Editor’s note - Competition Law International - July 2024
Released on Aug 4, 2024
Competition Law International - July 2024
Released on Aug 4, 2024
Changes to the Competition Act – a catalyst for the Indian economy?
India is increasingly becoming a key jurisdiction for foreign investment. To keep the momentum going, the Indian government has consistently attempted to keep the business environment friendly and less burdensome. This includes: a reduction in corporate tax rates; easing the liquidity problems of non-banking financial corporations and banks; foreign direct investment policy reforms; and easing compliance norms – all with the aim of promoting ‘ease of doing business in India’. After more than a decade, India’s competition law has recently been amended, bringing about key changes that will impact businesses. The 2023 Amendments to the Indian Competition Act 2002 (the Act) introduce changes that several antitrust jurisdictions are still considering. The 2023 Amendments are a mixed bag of changes: several are business friendly – such as commitments and settlements, expedited merger review timelines and introducing a leniency-plus regime – while others aim to achieve greater regulatory oversight and stricter enforcement, such as deal value thresholds, penalties on global turnover and increased liability for hubs in ‘hub-and-spoke’ cartels. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), the body entrusted with the responsibility to nurture and maintain well-functioning markets that facilitate the growth manifested by the Indian government, must adopt a balanced approach to ensure that competition enforcement does not get in the way of ‘economic growth’ as envisaged under the Preamble of the Act. This article examines the impact of the 2023 Amendments on the Indian market. In particular, the writers examine the CCI’s approach in adopting these tools and tailor it according to the requirements of the Indian economy.
Released on Dec 21, 2023
An analysis of the DoJ/FTC’s draft revised Merger Guidelines
On 19 July 2023, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) released a draft update of the Merger Guidelines. The FTC and DoJ use the Merger Guidelines as an internal reference when evaluating the potential competitive impact of a proposed transaction. It also serves as a policy statement to the public regarding their enforcement priorities. The draft Guidelines differ dramatically from prior guidance issued in 2010 in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, and from the Vertical Merger Guidelines released more recently in 2020. This article analyses the key changes in the draft Guidelines and what they may mean for US merger enforcement going forward.
Released on Dec 21, 2023