In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | Poland | Italy | The Netherlands | European Union | Germany
United States
A. U.S. Litigation
1. Cornish-Adebiyi et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Inc. et al., Case No. 24-3006 (3rd Cir. October 29, 2024).
On July 29, 2026, the Third Circuit revived a proposed class action alleging that several Atlantic City casino-hotels unlawfully coordinated room rates through Cendyn’s “Rainmaker” revenue-management software. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a hub-and-spoke conspiracy by claiming the hotels shared nonpublic pricing and occupancy data through the platform, adhered to the algorithm’s pricing recommendations roughly 90% of the time, and continued raising rates even as occupancy declined.
“Economic principles state that a casino-hotel whose room occupancy is steadily decreasing over the years would lower room rates in order to compete for more hotel guests who will then be available to venture into the casino. Moreover, common sense suggests as much,” Judge Theodore A. McKee wrote, “[b]ut, this might spur competition and create downward price pressure thus resulting in the very ‘race to the bottom’ that Cendyn’s former executive allegedly cautioned hotels to avoid.”
2. McLane Co. Inc. et al. v. ASR Group International Inc. et al., Case No. 0:26-cv-03412 (D. Minn. July 24, 2026).
On July 24, 2026, several food and beverage companies, including Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Bimbo Bakeries, and Frito-Lay, filed an antitrust lawsuit in Minnesota federal court, alleging that major sugar refineries and producers have been involved in a price-fixing scheme. The complaint alleges that the sugar companies engaged in “cartel activity” and that they have “conspired to artificially inflate prices of refined sugar” since Jan. 1, 2019, by sharing information about pricing and supplies through Louis Dreyfus Co. LLC and Commodity Information Inc. (which are also named in the suit). The food and beverage producers argue that they are not able to easily switch to a different sweetener if sugar prices spike, and they allege that the defendants were “colluding rather than responding” to the market and developing standardized pricing formulas that were used to fix the prices of refined sugar and “maintain artificially high price levels.”
3. DirecTV LLC Nexstar Media Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-05049 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2023).
On July 14, 2026, a New York federal court denied a motion to dismiss DirecTV’s claims that Nexstar Media Group and affiliated broadcast station owners Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting coordinated retransmission fee negotiations through shared control arrangements. The court found that DirecTV plausibly alleged an agreement to act in concert. According to the order, DirecTV “alleges that Nexstar receives nearly all profits generated by the two sidecars, and that Nexstar has option agreements that would permit it to purchase the full equity of both sidecars, which diminishes the incentives of White Knight and Mission to pursue their own economic self-interests.” The court also held that market-definition arguments were premature at the pleading stage, allowing the claims to proceed under both per se price-fixing and rule-of-reason theories. In addition, the court refused to toss several state-law claims based on the alleged collusive conduct.
4. Multiple Energy Technologies LLC v. Under Armour Inc., Case 2:20-cv-00664 (W.D. Pa. May 5, 2020).
On July 13, 2026, a Pennsylvania federal court dismissed Sherman Act and state-law unfair competition claims brought against Under Armour by former supplier Multiple Energy Technologies LLC (MET), which alleged that Under Armour’s marketing of bioceramic clothing products and conduct following the parties’ split unlawfully excluded MET from the market. The court found that MET failed to establish antitrust injury or standing because “MET didn’t directly compete with Under Armour. MET’s clothing sales were isolated, and MET never established why a customer would switch from Under Armour products to MET products if Under Armour raised its prices.” The court likewise dismissed MET’s unfair competition theories but allowed a tortious interference claim to proceed, finding sufficient evidence that Under Armour may have influenced other companies to work with a competing supplier instead of MET.
Mexico
National Antitrust Commission (CNA)
1. CNA places agri-food sector under heightened antitrust scrutiny.
In a previous issue of Competition Currents, we reported on the CNA’s publication of its Institutional Program 2026-2030, the policy document that defines the sectors and objectives guiding Mexico’s competition authority for the next five years. In this issue, we dive deeper into the program’s most consequential designations: the agri-food sector as a strategic enforcement priority.
The CNA grounds this prioritization in concrete data: the sector accounts for 9% of Mexico’s GDP; food expenditures represent 37.7% of Mexican household spending — with a sustained upward price trend; and 25% of all cartel cases recorded in Latin America involve basic consumer staples markets. These figures, cited expressly in the Institutional Program, support the CNA’s view that competition enforcement in this sector could have a direct and meaningful impact on the cost of living for lower-income households, a stated objective of both Mexico’s National Development Plan 2025-2030 and its Sectoral Economic Program 2025-2030.
When the CNA designates a sector as a strategic priority, enforcement activity often follows. The tools expressly contemplated in the law include dawn raids, formal information requests, witness appearances, criminal complaints, and class actions on behalf of consumers. Companies with operations in Mexico or leading positions in their respective food markets may see higher likelihood of some form of interaction with the authority during this enforcement cycle.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
1. UOKiK probes mortgage credit scoring practices.
On July 8, 2026, UOKiK announced that it had conducted dawn raids at BIK, a Polish credit information bureau, and three banks as part of explanatory proceedings into whether certain features of BIK’s creditworthiness scoring models, commonly used in the Polish banking sector, may raise competition law concerns.
UOKiK is investigating whether, under an alleged anticompetitive agreement, consumers who submitted applications for credit to multiple banks may have received less favorable terms — or been denied credit altogether — than those who applied to only one bank. The number of credit inquiries is one of the factors reflected in the BIK creditworthiness scoring model.
UOKiK is examining whether using such information on consumers’ credit inquiries is necessary to assess mortgage borrowers’ ability to repay long-term loans and whether it may disadvantage consumers who compare offers from multiple lenders. UOKiK is also assessing whether BIK’s collection, processing, and sharing of such information could constitute an abuse of dominance.
The investigation remains ongoing, and no formal allegations have been announced.
2. UOKiK charges Autocentrum AAA Auto over tied-selling practices in used-car financing.
On July 22, 2026, UOKiK announced charges against Autocentrum AAA Auto for alleged violations of collective consumer interests in connection with its financing arrangements for used-car purchases.
According to UOKiK, consumers seeking to purchase a vehicle on credit were allegedly required to purchase additional products or services, such as GPS trackers, insurance, or vehicle accessories, increasing the total amount financed, in some cases by several thousand PLN. UOKiK also raised concerns that consumers were not provided with key information about GPS trackers, including their model, type, intended use, and technical features, and alleged that consumers were not clearly informed that the related service would automatically renew for an additional paid subscription period.
If the allegations are confirmed, the company may face a fine of up to 10% of its annual turnover. The proceedings are ongoing.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA accepts Trenitalia commitments concerning obstacles to refunds for prolonged delays and train cancellations.
On July 30, 2026, ICA closed, with commitments, an investigation into Trenitalia S.p.A. concerning potential obstacles for passengers exercising their right to a full ticket refund in cases of prolonged delays, missed connections, or train cancellations.
The investigation focused on a requirement that passengers obtain prior confirmation of their decision not to travel before requesting a refund. Passengers were allegedly required, shortly before or during the disruption, to contact Trenitalia’s call center or a station ticket office to obtain the relevant certification. ICA considered that this requirement could constitute a disproportionate burden on consumers and hinder access to a full refund under the applicable rail passengers’ rights rules.
Without finding an infringement, ICA accepted and made binding commitments offered by Trenitalia. In particular, Trenitalia committed to removing the prior journey-renunciation certification requirement from the refund process, strengthening existing refund request channels, and creating a dedicated page on its website providing passengers with the key information required in the event of disruptions affecting rail services. Trenitalia must report to ICA within three months on the implementation of these measures.
2. ICA fines six companies over alleged ambush marketing practices linked to Milano-Cortina 2026.
On July 17, 2026, ICA imposed fines totaling more than €2.5 million (approximately $2.9 million) on Harmont&Blaine S.p.A., Rialto S.p.A., MD S.p.A., Magazzini Gabrielli S.p.A., RetailPro S.p.A., and Butan Gas S.p.A. for engaging in prohibited ambush marketing practices in connection with the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games.
The proceedings arose from an investigation opened in January 2026 following monitoring activities carried out by the Special Antitrust Unit of the Italian Financial Police. According to ICA, although the companies were not official Olympic sponsors, they carried out misleading advertising campaigns and promotional initiatives that created an association between their brands and the games, including through using or referring to Olympic symbols and emblems, such as the five Olympic rings, as well as official designations such as “Milano-Cortina” and “Milano-Cortina 2026.”
ICA concluded that these elements could establish an undue commercial link between the companies and the Olympic Games and therefore amounted to ambush marketing, in breach of applicable rules prohibiting parasitic advertising practices.
The Netherlands
A. Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
1. The ACM investigates possible cartel among suppliers to public sector organizations.
On July 7, 2026, the ACM announced that it is investigating a possible cartel among suppliers to public sector organizations, after carrying out unannounced inspections at several companies. The ACM suspects that these companies agreed to share customers.
The ACM has not disclosed the companies involved, nor has it specified which area of the public sector the investigation concerned, citing the interest of the ongoing investigation and the risk of unnecessary reputational damage. It has not yet concluded whether the competition rules were in fact breached, but fines for a confirmed infringement can reach up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover.
2. The ACM clears cooperation in maritime sector to build vessels with reduced burden on the environment.
On July 3, 2026, the ACM concluded that the maritime sector may cooperate to improve sharing and reuse of data between companies and other organizations. The cooperation is intended to accelerate the development, construction, and use of ships with a lower environmental impact.
Assessed informally under the ACM’s sustainability agreements policy, the initiative was found not to restrict competition on price or quality, given that:
- participation is open and voluntary;
- participants are not technically excluded from the data;
- safeguards exist against the exchange of competitively sensitive information; and
- the process and outcomes are transparent.
The ACM also noted the initiative’s contribution to reduced dependency on fossil fuels and to preserving relevant knowledge and production capacity in the Netherlands and Europe.
B. Dutch Courts
1. Amsterdam District Court dismisses Shell and Repsol damages claims against ethylene cartel members.
On July 29, 2026, the Amsterdam District Court dismissed follow-on damages claims brought by Shell and Repsol against Celanese, Clariant, Orbia, and Westlake following the European Commission’s 2020 decision fining the companies a combined €260 million (approximately $300 million) for allegedly colluding on the ethylene purchase prices. The court found that it could not establish that the prohibited information exchange actually affected the monthly ethylene reference price. The rulings are the first to address the substance of damages claims arising from this cartel. Five further claims remain pending before the same court.
European Union
European Commission (EC)
1. The EC issues Statements of Objections in suspected construction chemicals cartel.
On July 20, 2026, the EC sent Statements of Objections to a number of construction chemicals manufacturers active in France, Germany, and Spain, together with three national trade associations, setting out its preliminary view that they coordinated future price increases for chemical additives used in cement and admixtures used in concrete and mortar.
The alleged coordination is said to have taken place in 2021 and 2022, as raw material costs rose sharply due to the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, reportedly via national trade associations preparing press releases to justify the increases.
The step follows unannounced inspections carried out in October 2023 and reflects the EC’s preliminary view of three separate national infringements of Article 101 TFEU. If an infringement is ultimately found, fines of up to 10% of worldwide turnover may be imposed.
Germany
Bundeskartellamt (BKartA)
1. BKartA fines tire supplier and wholesalers for vertical resale price restrictions.
On July 21, 2026, the BKartA imposed fines totaling €11.9 million (approximately $13.7 million) on Maxxis International GmbH, Best4Tires Berlin GmbH, Reifen Müller GmbH & Co. KG, and an individual for anticompetitive practices relating to the distribution of Maxxis and CST tires in Germany.
According to the BKartA, Maxxis operated a long-running system designed to stabilize resale prices through a combination of margin guarantee agreements, resale price recommendations, price monitoring, and interventions directed at wholesalers whose prices were deemed too low. The BKartA fined not only the supplier that implemented the system, but also wholesalers that allegedly insisted on and benefited from the arrangements.
The decisions are not yet final and may be appealed before the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.
2. BKartA sanctions distributors of testing and measuring equipment for price coordination.
On July 15, 2026, the BKartA imposed fines totalling €453,000 (approximately $522,000) on CalPlus GmbH, Elektronik-Kontor Messtechnik GmbH, and TVW Meßtechnik GmbH for allegedly coordinating discounts and other pricing parameters for the distribution of testing and measuring equipment between 2016 and 2022.
According to the BKartA, the companies implemented the arrangement through a systematic exchange of customer information. Where one distributor had already approached a customer or conducted a product demonstration, competitors were informed and frequently asked to exercise restraint. During its investigation, the BKartA reportedly secured more than 400 emails documenting the practice.
The case was triggered by a whistleblower report and concluded by way of settlement.
1 Due to the terms of GT’s retention by certain of its clients, these summaries may not include developments relating to matters involving those clients.