In This Issue1
United States | Netherlands | Poland | Italy | Japan
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
FTC approves final order prohibiting enforcement of Gateway Services’ employee noncompete agreements.
The FTC finalized a consent order on Nov. 26, 2025, preventing nationwide pet cremation company Gateway Services, Inc. from enforcing noncompete agreements against its 1,800 employees. The Commission alleged that Gateway’s one-year, industry-wide noncompete provisions unlawfully restricted employee mobility and suppressed competition. Under the final order, Gateway must cease enforcing noncompetes the FTC identified as limiting job mobility and refrain from entering into similar future agreements.
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
DOJ requires RealPage to end the sharing of competitively sensitive information and alignment of pricing among competitors.
The U.S. Justice Department’s Antitrust Division filed a proposed settlement resolving allegations that RealPage’s revenue-management platform facilitated algorithmic price alignment among competing multifamily landlords by relying on nonpublic competitor data and product features designed to reduce downward pricing pressure. If approved, the settlement would require RealPage to: (1) stop using competitors’ real-time, nonpublic data in pricing algorithms; (2) restrict model training to historical information; (3) eliminate market-survey data collection; and (4) submit to a compliance monitor. The Justice Department had alleged RealPage’s software included design features intended to align pricing and relied on competitively sensitive, nonpublic data to set rental rates. According to Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater, “competing companies must make independent pricing decisions, and with the rise of algorithmic and artificial intelligence tools, we will remain at the forefront of vigorous antitrust enforcement.”
C. U.S. Litigation
1. RealPage v. James, 1:25-cv-09585 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2025).
RealPage filed suit against New York Attorney General Letitia James in the Southern District of New York, challenging the state’s recently enacted ban on using AI pricing tools in rental markets. The New York statute prohibits landlords from using algorithms or revenue-management software that rely on predictive analytics to inform pricing decisions. RealPage’s lawsuit alleges the ban violates the First Amendment by restricting the company’s ability to develop, communicate, and provide analytical tools to property managers. The suit comes on the heels of the Justice Department’s separate settlement in its 2024 enforcement action concerning RealPage’s alleged facilitation of coordinated pricing among rental-housing competitors.
2. In re: Realpage, Inc., No. 3:23-md-3071 (M.D. Tenn 2025).
On Nov. 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. granted preliminary approval to 26 settlements worth $141.8 million in the multidistrict litigation over RealPage’s rent‑pricing software. The deals cover a certified class of multifamily renters who paid rent to landlords using the platform and resolves claims that the software allowed landlords to coordinate rent increases. Attorneys General (AGs) from Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Maryland, and Kentucky opposed the agreements, arguing that the preliminary approval papers lacked essential information about damages, distribution, and attorneys’ fees. Landlord defendants countered that the AGs lacked standing under the Sixth Circuit’s Chapman v. Tristar Products decision; Judge Crenshaw nevertheless allowed the settlements to move forward.
3. In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No: 14-MD-2542 (SVB) (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
A New York federal judge on Nov. 20, 2025, denied class certification for direct purchasers alleging Keurig monopolized the K‑Cup single‑serve coffee market through exclusive dealing, sham litigation, and the restrictive design of its 2.0 brewer. Judge Vernon S. Broderick held that plaintiffs’ econometric model, which averaged overcharges across six purchasing categories, failed to account for individual negotiations and therefore did not demonstrate class‑wide antitrust injury. He observed that direct‑to‑consumer buyers paid uniform prices, but many other purchasers negotiated terms, undermining predominance. The judge also doubted that the named plaintiffs’ claims were typical of large retailers, concluding that differences in bargaining power and negotiated pricing defeated Rule 23 class certification.
4. Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, No. 25-cv-7096 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
On Nov. 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed antitrust claims brought by Enhanced US LLC—organizer of an “Enhanced Games” that permits performance‑enhancing drugs—against World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and the World Anti‑Doping Agency (WADA). The court held that Enhanced failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy to thwart its competitions and granted motions to dismiss. Judge Furman noted that a bylaw barring athletes who support performance‑enhancing drugs leaves national federations free to adopt or reject the policy, undermining allegations of collusion. He also said Enhanced failed to allege monopsony power or a plausible boycott conspiracy, observing that WADA’s public statements about clean sport are consistent with its mission and not evidence of an unlawful agreement. The plaintiffs have 30 days to amend their complaint if they choose to refile.
Netherlands
A. Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
ACM raids contractors after municipal tender.
The Dutch Competition Authority (ACM) is investigating whether three contractors made prohibited agreements in a municipal tender. The companies are active in civil engineering. ACM has received a complaint that these companies may have coordinated their bids. This is not permitted, as it distorts competition and results in the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, paying too much for contracts.
The ACM is investigating whether there was indeed contact between the contractors involved prior to the tender and whether they made agreements about prices or the distribution of contracts. The ACM has conducted unannounced inspections (also known as dawn raids) at the companies’ premises.
B. Dutch Courts
1. CBb upholds ACM’s 2019 prohibition of PostNL–Sandd merger.
The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) has confirmed ACM’s 2019 decision to block PostNL’s acquisition of Sandd, ruling PostNL’s appeal unfounded and leaving the prohibition fully intact. The judgment reaffirms that ACM correctly found the merger would create a postal monopoly, likely resulting in higher prices without sufficient efficiency gains. Although the merger proceeded at the time under a now-annulled ministerial exemption, the CBb clarified that this did not render the transaction illegal when completed.
With the highest administrative court now validating ACM’s substantive merger assessment, ACM will consult with stakeholders on the consequences of the ruling. The case underscores the strict scrutiny applied to mergers that risk eliminating effective competition, particularly where public-interest justifications were used to override competition concerns but later failed judicial review.
2. Dutch Supreme Court confirms liability framework in Dutch elevator cartel follow-on litigation.
The Dutch Supreme Court has upheld the Hague Court of Appeal’s rulings in two major follow-on damages actions arising from the European Commission (Commission)’s 2007 decision fining the European elevator and escalator cartel. The Court ruled that Kone and Otis are liable in principle for harm that Dutch housing corporations whose claims were assigned to Stichting De Glazen Lift (DGL) suffered. Crucially, the Court endorsed the Court of Appeal’s approach that participation in a single and continuous infringement suffices to establish liability, and that for referral to a damages quantification phase it is enough that a housing corporation purchased at least one product or service from a cartel member during the infringement period. The Supreme Court also agreed that the cartel likely had price-increasing effects, relying on the Commission’s findings and well-established economic principles.
From a competition law perspective, the ruling provides guidance on the evidentiary thresholds in private enforcement of antitrust damages claims. The Court confirmed that claimants need not prove transaction-specific overcharges in the main proceedings, and that defendants’ liability is limited to the period of their actual participation in the cartel. It further upheld joint and several liability among participants for cartel-related conduct, while rejecting arguments for broader liability outside the participation period. The decision reinforces the Dutch courts’ alignment with EU principles on follow-on litigation and lower procedural barriers for victims of cartels seeking compensation.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
1. UOKiK fines Biedronka nearly PLN 105 million for misleading voucher promotions.
On Dec. 1, 2025, the UOKiK President imposed a fine of approximately PLN 105 million (approx. EUR 23.6 mn / USD 25.6 mn) on Jeronimo Martins Polska, the operator of the Biedronka retail chain, for misleading consumers during one-day promotion campaigns “Special Wednesday” and “Valentine’s Wednesday.”
According to the UOKiK President, the advertised promise of “100% refund on a voucher” did not reflect the actual terms of use. Consumers were not informed upfront that vouchers could only be used for selected product categories, required a minimum spend exceeding the voucher value, and were subject to limits on the number of vouchers per person. These material conditions were disclosed only in detailed regulations, on in-store noticeboards, or directly on the voucher - after the purchase decision had already been made.
The UOKiK President found that consumers might reasonably expect to redeem the voucher freely on any assortment of goods, as advertising materials in stores, on social media, and through mobile channels suggested. Instead, promotional products were often unrelated to the categories eligible for voucher redemption, and in some cases consumers were able to use the voucher only for narrowly defined items such as detergents or specific beverages.
The UOKiK President has concluded that the company intentionally misled consumers, thereby infringing collective consumers’ interests. The decision is not final; Jeronimo Martins Polska may appeal it in court.
2. UOKiK investigates alleged price-fixing in the sale of Posnet fiscal devices.
On Nov. 12, 2025, the UOKiK President initiated explanatory proceedings to examine whether Posnet Polska and several of its distributors coordinated retail prices of fiscal devices, including cash registers, payment terminals, and barcode scanners. The proceedings involved dawn raids at the premises of Posnet Polska and three distributors—Esc (Kraków), Segal (Opole) and Dotkom (Tychy).
According to the UOKiK President, a market analysis indicated that online prices of the Posnet fiscal devices were identical or nearly identical across multiple retailers. If confirmed, such coordination may constitute an unlawful price-fixing agreement restricting the distributors’ ability to offer lower prices to customers. Evidence obtained during inspections is currently being examined.
The proceedings are conducted in rem and not yet directed against specific companies. Should the evidence confirm the suspected practices, the UOKiK President may open formal antitrust proceedings and bring charges against the individual companies and managers. Participation in a price-fixing arrangement may result in fines up to 10% of the company’s annual turnover and up to PLN 2 million for the individuals responsible.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA accepts CNF’s commitments in proceedings on the alleged anticompetitive agreement concerning the new Article 25-bis of the lawyers’ code of conduct.
On Nov. 12, 2025, ICA closed investigative proceedings by accepting the commitments that the National Lawyers Council (Consiglio Nazionale Forense; CNF) submitted regarding CNF’s adoption of a new Article 25-bis of the lawyers’ code of conduct on Feb. 23, 2024. This article aimed to implement the “fair remuneration” (equo compenso) rules that Law No. 49/2023 introduced.
ICA identified the alleged anticompetitive conduct as Article 25-bis, as CNF formulated and communicated it, effectively extended the “fair remuneration” obligations beyond the limited category of clients the law envisaged (i.e., banks, insurers, large companies, public administrations, etc.). ICA argued that such general application to all clients would unduly restrict lawyers’ freedom to negotiate their fees, thereby distorting competition among lawyers and amounting to a prohibited agreement under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.
CNF’s commitments consisted of a set of corrective measures to narrow Article 25-bis’ scope. Specifically, CNF amended the provision’s text to limit its application strictly to the relationships Law No. 49/2023 covers (i.e., large clients), and committed to issue and disseminate a circular clarifying that the “fair remuneration” obligation does not extend to other client types. Furthermore, CNF committed to ensuring adequate dissemination of the revised provision and circular among all members, and to organize periodic (e.g., annual) training/conference initiatives to raise awareness of the correct application of the “fair remuneration” regime.
2. ICA fines Wizz Air for unfair commercial practices in the “All You Can Fly” subscription scheme.
On Nov. 14, 2025, ICA announced the imposition of a fine amounting to EUR 500,000 on Wizz Air. The measure follows an antitrust investigation initiated on Feb. 14, 2025, after a report concerning the airline’s potentially misleading and unfair commercial practices in the marketing and sale of its “Wizz All You Can Fly” annual subscription.
ICA’s decision stems from the conclusion that Wizz Air failed to provide clear, complete, and non-ambiguous information about the subscription offer’s conditions and characteristics. In particular, the promotional materials and subscription terms allegedly omitted or obscured relevant details, thereby preventing consumers from making an informed decision and generating a distortion of the contractual balance in the company’s favor. ICA found that such omissions and lack of transparency constituted an unfair commercial practice under the relevant consumer-protection regulations.
In light of these findings, ICA declared the contested clauses null and void, imposed the administrative sanction of EUR 500 000, and ordered the publication of an excerpt of the decision to inform the public and encourage deterrence. The decision can be appealed before Lazio Regional Administrative Tribunal within 60 days of its publication.
Japan
Update on Japan’s Subcontracting Law
Japan has applied the Subcontracting Act for many years to ensure fairness in business transactions, particularly to protect small and medium-sized enterprises from unfair practices by larger companies. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, this law will undergo a major revision and be renamed the “Act on Ensuring Fair Transactions with Small and Medium Subcontractors.” The revision responds to rising costs and evolving business practices, aiming to promote fair price adjustments throughout supply chains.
The scope of regulation will expand. In addition to capital-based criteria, employee-based thresholds will apply—300 employees for manufacturing and 100 for service outsourcing. A new category, “specific transportation outsourcing,” will be added. This refers to outsourcing transportation necessary for delivering manufactured goods, aiming to prevent unfair practices in logistics.
Prohibited acts will be strengthened. Unilateral price setting without negotiation will be banned, and promissory note payments will be prohibited. Certain payment methods, such as electronic recorded claims and factoring, will also be restricted if they prevent full settlement by the due date. Enforcement will be enhanced, allowing supervisory ministries to provide guidance alongside the Japan Fair Trade Commission.
Importantly, as long as the transaction takes place in Japan, this law applies even when one of the parties is a foreign enterprise.
Read previous editions of GT’s Competition Currents Newsletter.
Subscribe to GT Antitrust Litigation & Competition Regulation content.
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.