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
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
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 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
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
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
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
Released on Feb 5, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
Released on Aug 4, 2024
Released on Aug 4, 2024
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
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
Like many regulators around the world, the South African Competition Commission is increasingly turning to its power to conduct market inquiries as a measure to not only better understand the dynamics of markets that may be operating inefficiently, but also as a tool for ex ante regulation of market conduct without the rigour of a full-blown prosecution involving the adversarial testing of evidence. Especially in the case of novel and fast-moving markets in the new digital economy, a slew of market inquiries have culminated in pointed and interventionist ‘remedies’. A key procedural question is the extent to which remedies from a market inquiry are capable of direct enforcement on their face or whether the Commission’s powers are more muted, requiring sector-specific regulation within the four corners of enabling legislation, or follow-on prosecution by the Commission for prohibited conduct. Despite the perceived urgent need to regulate markets that move faster than prosecution in the ordinary course, and tempting analogies to be drawn with the constitutionally imbued powers of the Public Protector, the writers caution against a purposive interpretation that may trammel the rights of respondent companies in complex circumstances at least once removed from a vertical application of the Bill of Rights.
Released on Dec 21, 2023
In this interview, Andrea Coscelli CBE, former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) from 2016 until 2022, offers insight into the challenges he and the CMA faced, particularly following the 2016 Brexit referendum, in which the UK voted to leave the European Union. The interview also discusses how the CMA is protected from political interference, before Andrea delves into the difficult decisions he faced as CEO, and what he might do differently if he had the opportunity. The discussion considers the CMA’s portrayal as an aggressive enforcer and the emulation of the CMA in market investigations.
Released on Dec 21, 2023
In this comprehensive interview, the Chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) provides a detailed analysis of recent amendments to the Indian Competition Act 2002, highlighting their significance in bolstering competition and economic growth in India. The amendments, encompassing both procedural and substantive changes, introduce business-friendly mechanisms such as settlements and commitments, and expedited timelines for combinations. The Chairperson emphasises the positive impact of these reforms on easing market corrections and streamlining merger review processes. The interview also addresses the introduction of deal value thresholds for M&A approval, illustrating the CCI’s commitment to balance regulatory requirements with the facilitation of M&A activities in a thriving economy. The discussion further delves into the computation of penalties based on global total turnover, underscoring the principle of proportionality in penalty determination. The interview sheds light on the CCI’s enhanced capabilities in addressing market behaviour of large technology companies, aligning with the evolving landscape of digital markets. Overall, the interview offers valuable insights into the CCI’s strategic vision for promoting healthy competition and fair business practices in India’s dynamic economic environment.
Released on Dec 21, 2023
Released on Dec 20, 2023
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is one of the 13 flagship projects of the Agenda 2063 of the African Union. Its aim is to create a single integrated African market and boost intra-Africa trade. To achieve this, AfCFTA will need to address some factors that have dwarfed intra-Africa trade for decades. Among these factors are anti-competitive conduct by private enterprises operating on the African continent. The focus of this article is on the remedy advanced by AfCFTA to address the problem of less meaningful trade and integration on the African continent posed by anti-competitive conduct of private enterprises. A Competition Protocol (CP) has been adopted pursuant to Article 4 of AfCFTA to address this problem. This article interrogates whether the CP is a necessity, or it is simply an overzealous endeavour.
Released on Dec 20, 2023
The rise of digital technologies, notably e-commerce and algorithms, has brought increased attention to competitive challenges. Consequently, competition authorities across different jurisdictions have embarked on the task of developing policies to address these potential competition issues. In line with this collective effort to establish a regulatory framework, the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) released the White Paper on Competition Policy in the Digital Economy on 20 December 2022 (‘the White Paper’). The White Paper starts with the TFTC’s observation of the development and characteristics of the digital economy. It goes on to outline the TFTC’s observations, considerations and concerns regarding competition with the digital economy. It suggests possible approaches to address these emerging competition issues, shedding light on the TFTC’s enforcement position based on how it views the market reality in the digital economy. This article aims to summarise the key competition issues highlighted in the White Paper, focusing on three major aspects – abuse of a dominant position, merger and concerted action – and offers insights on the TFTC’s recent practices concerning the digital economy.
Released on Dec 20, 2023
While international competition regimes rarely operate in precisely the same way, many share a common feature: the decisions of the country’s competition law authority are subject to third-party review. Usually, Canadian and United States enforcers must prove their case in front of an independent judiciary. In Europe, enforcement decisions may be subject to judicial review or appeal. Whatever the precise structure, the third-party review process has important implications for enforcers and merging parties alike. Perhaps the most fundamental is whether third-party reviewers approach the law and evidence the same way as enforcers. Often, they do not. Two recent Canadian and American merger cases are striking examples of this phenomenon. In these cases, judges dismissed the enforcer’s case because they fundamentally disagreed with the enforcer’s approach to the law and the evidence provided. In Canada, the CAD$26bn Rogers–Shaw merger – one of the largest domestic corporate transactions in the nation’s history – closed in April 2023 after over two years of unsuccessful government regulatory challenges and litigation. The global Microsoft–Activision acquisition – labelled the largest acquisition in the technology industry’s history – faced significant regulatory opposition from regulators in the US and the United Kingdom before finally closing on 13 October 2023. An attempt by the US Federal Trade Commission to block the Microsoft–Activision transaction failed in July 2023. Although one case involves a vertical merger in the technology industry and the other involved a horizontal merger in the telecommunications industry, the enforcers approached both cases in a similar fashion, and both lost their cases for the same reason: their approach to the law and the evidence was fundamentally different than that adopted by the courts. Despite the differences between the cases, Canada’s Competition Tribunal in Rogers–Shaw and Judge Corley in Microsoft–Activision adopted a strikingly similar approach to the law and evidence: one grounded in the principles of fairness, efficiency and common sense. Their decisions hold valuable evidentiary and legal lessons for enforcers and practitioners alike. This article summarises both cases, outlines the key similarities in the eventual decisions and concludes with a list of critical takeaways for enforcers and practitioners to refer to in circumstances where they must convince third-party decision-makers of the correctness of their position.
Released on Dec 20, 2023
Released on Dec 20, 2023
Released on Jul 26, 2023
This article provides a brief introduction on the procedural changes before seeking to provide a dialectical and nuanced perspective on the potential influence these changes will bring to multiple stakeholders of China merger control regime. This includes the notifying parties, the antitrust authorities (the State Administration for Market Regulation or SAMR), and others.
Released on Jul 26, 2023
In mid-2014, China introduced a simplified proceeding for mergers that are not expected to harm competition or change the market structure in China. This is the ‘fast track’ merger review process, which is similar to the ‘short form’ proceedings in the European Union and other jurisdictions. In China, the simplified proceeding will apply where transactions that meet at least one of six criteria.
Released on Jul 26, 2023
China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) has only been enforced for 15 years, but despite this relatively short timeframe, China has not shied away from intensive antitrust enforcement. The authorities have also extensively engaged in drafting AML implementing regulations or guidelines. Within this process, it has been gradually perceived that the AML adopted in 2007 was no longer ‘fit’ for a changing landscape, particularly after more than a decade of capacity building. As a result, a revision of the AML was initiated in 2019 and was finalised on 24 June 2022 (the New Law). The New Law brings in total 38 amendments, including 13 newly added articles and 25 revised articles. All those amendments can be divided into two types: minor changes and significant changes. This article reviews those amendments and attempts to explain the reasons behind them, as well as their significance and problems for antitrust enforcement in the future.
Released on Jul 26, 2023