In This Issue1
United States | Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. Federal Trade Commission files to accede to vacatur of non-compete clause rule.
On Sept. 5, the FTC announced it had formally abandoned its appeals in two United States Courts of Appeals injunctions against enforcement of its 2024 rule that effectively banned and/or voided all employee non-competes nationwide. Please see the GT Alert FTC Completes Strategy Pivot: Drops Nationwide Noncompete Ban, Targets Individual Cases for more details on this deal.
2. Three directors resign from Sevita board of directors in response to the FTC’s ongoing enforcement efforts against interlocking directorates.
Continuing its focus on Section 8 violations of the Clayton Act (prohibiting interlocking directorates), the FTC announced on Sept. 15 that three board members resigned their positions on the board of directors of Sevita Health in response to FTC Section 8 enforcement. Per the press release, these directors served on the board of each of Sevita and Beacon Specialized Living Services, Inc., with both organizations providing services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Of the actions, Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition stated: “We are pleased that the firms involved in this case worked with the FTC to resolve this issue quickly. We encourage all firms to review their board memberships to avoid any overlaps with competitors—including when new board members are added as a result of investments by private equity firms or other new shareholders.”
3. FTC recommends anticompetitive regulations for deletion or revision.
On Sept. 16, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson submitted the agency’s recommendations for reducing anti-competitive regulatory barriers, in response to President Trump’s executive order “Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers,” announced in April. The FTC’s recommendations for deletion or modification include: (a) Department of Transportation regulations giving contracting preferences for projects to businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”; (b) Department of Education regulations permitting colleges to include the cost of textbooks and supplies with annual tuition, covered by financial aid, while noting that students must opt out to avoid these charges, which may raise prices for students and foreclosure of rival book stores; (c) a Consumer Product Safety Commission proposed rule requiring table saws to use finger detection technology, as proposed by the sole patent holder of the finger detection technology, using rulemaking to eliminate competition; and (d) a Forest Service Handbook the Department of Agriculture Forest Service issued establishing eligibility and qualification requirements for administering certain grazing permits, which may inhibit entry by new entrants.
4. FTC and DOJ issue fiscal year 2024 Hart-Scott-Rodino annual report.
On Sept. 17, 2025, the FTC and DOJ released their Hart-Scott-Rodino Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (Oct. 1, 2023-Sept. 30, 2024). In fiscal year 2024, 2,031 transactions were notified under the HSR Act, and the agencies filed a combined total of 32 merger enforcement actions.
5. FTC alters final consent order in response to public comments, preventing coordination in global advertising merger.
On Sept. 26, the FTC announced that at the conclusion of the public comment period, it had approved the final order clearing the way for Omnicom Group’s $13.5 billion acquisition of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The consent order prohibits the combined firm from denying advertising to certain media publishers based on the publisher’s political or ideological viewpoints. Changes to the final order included a clarification of the order’s scope and a compliance monitor.
6. FTC sues Zillow and Redfin over illegal agreement to suppress rental advertising competition.
The FTC announced on Sept. 30 that it (and five state attorneys general) had sued Zillow and Redfin, alleging the parties entered into an illegal agreement that removes Redfin as a competitor in the market for placing advertising of rental housing advertising on internet listing services. According to the complaint, Zillow paid Redfin $100 million to end contracts with advertising customers and help Zillow take over that business, to stop competing in the multifamily rental advertising market for up to nine years, and to serve only as an exclusive syndicator of Zillow listings, essentially making Redfin’s sites duplicates of the listings on Zillow’s. According to the FTC, this arrangement violates antitrust laws by reducing competition, potentially leading to higher prices and worse terms for advertisers and less innovation in services for renters. The complaint seeks to end the agreement and restore competition, possibly through asset-divestiture or reconstructing the businesses.
7. FTC denies petition to reopen EQT, Quantum Energy order.
In October 2023, the FTC approved a final consent order to resolve its antitrust concerns surrounding a deal between private equity firm Quantum Energy Partners and natural gas producer EQT Corporation, where the parties are competitors in the production and sale of natural gas in the Appalachian Basin. Under the consent order, Quantum is prohibited from serving on the EQT board to prevent an interlocking directorate and must sell its EQT shares. The FTC denied a petition seeking to reopen and set aside a final consent order involving a $5.2 billion cash-and-stock deal between Quantum and EQT. In July 2025, the FTC sought public comment on a petition to reopen and set aside the final consent, however, on Sept. 30 the FTC announced it was denying the petition since Quantum did not identify any changes that would justify it.
8. Status of FTC online services during 2025 lapse in funding.
Per the FTC website: “The FTC is closed as of midnight Wednesday, October 1, 2025, due to the lapse in government funding… The Premerger Notification Office (PNO) will remain open to accept filings. PNO staff will be online from 9 am to 1 pm ET each business day. During the shutdown, the PNO will not answer HSR questions or grant early termination. As usual, filings may be submitted at any time, but any filing received after 5 pm ET will be treated as filed on the next regular business day. Waiting periods will be unaffected and run as usual.”
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. Antitrust Division contributes to efforts to promote prosperity through deregulation.
As discussed above, on Sept. 17, 2025, the DOJ announced its collaboration with the FTC to identify over 125 anticompetitive regulations in response to in response to President Trump’s executive order on “Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.” Of the effort, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater stated: “In America we believe in free markets, not central planning by government regulators or powerful monopolists. Lowering barriers to entry by removing anticompetitive regulations will free America’s innovators and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: drive America’s future success.”
2. DOJ and USDA coordinate to protect competition in agricultural inputs.
On Sept. 29, the DOJ and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to partner in promoting free market competition, thereby lowering input costs in key agricultural markets, including feed, fertilizer, fuel, and equipment. The goal is to ensure farmers and ranchers have competitive access to these key agriculture inputs. The MOU establishes regular communication channels and designates personnel from both agencies to work together on these efforts.
3. Georgetown Law 19th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium.
On Sept. 16, representatives from both the FTC and DOJ, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and AAG Slater, participated in Georgetown Law’s 19th Annual Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium. Ferguson noted the FTC’s continuity from Trump 1.0, including Big Tech cases, and noted Trump 2.0’s plan to return to regular order, such as restoring early termination and a return to remedies in deals. He noted the FTC’s continued interest in labor markets, particularly non-compete agreements in health care. Other panel participants noted a current trend towards fewer new regulations, but aggressive enforcement of the laws currently in effect (with examples including the Robinson-Patman cases continuing as well as interlocking directorate enforcement). Slater gave a speech emphasizing that antitrust laws are the free market laws, and compared data as the new oil (i.e., input affecting many different industries). For her, competitive markets are the key to innovation, with the need for antitrust laws to encourage entrenched firms to innovate rather than exclude. Panelists also discussed continued enforcement of non-competes, and a recommendation for companies to look closely at their non-competes to consider if they are truly necessary, as well as a suggestion for buyers to consider targeted non-compete agreements during merger review. In terms of merger review, the antitrust agencies also have an eye on HSR gamesmanship, including privilege call abuses.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Gibson, et al. v. Cendyn Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-3576 (9th Cir. June 7, 2024).
On Sept. 30, 2025, a proposed class of Las Vegas casino-hotel guests asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its prior ruling on their antitrust claims. The proposed class alleged that defendant hotel operators and hospitality software companies conspired to increase hotel room prices. The petition argues an August ruling by the Ninth Circuit “implicitly overruled” its 2003 decision in Paladin Associates Inc. v. Montana Power Co. by not examining whether alleged anticompetitive business agreements between the hotel operators and the software companies allegedly harmed consumers.
2. Cavalleri et al v. Hermes International, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01707 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2024).
On Sept. 17, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northen District of California dismissed with prejudice a proposed class action that accused Hermes of unlawfully tying the sale of its Birkin handbag to other expensive items. The consumers alleged that Hermes’ practice constitutes illegal tying under federal antitrust law because it conditions the sale of a dominant product (here, the Birkin handbag) on the purchase of another product. Judge Donato, however, found the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Hermes engaged in anticompetitive conduct: “The failure to adequately plead a relevant tying market, market power in the relevant market, and injury to competition in a tied product market, command dismissal of the Sherman Act claims.”
3. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-07646 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025).
CVS Pharmacy Inc. filed a complaint in the Northern District of California on Sept. 9, 2025, alleging that defendant drugmaker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and other entities engaged in a “horizontal conspiracy and agreement” to restrain competition in the U.S. market for the acid reflux drug Dexilant and its generic equivalents. The complaint alleges Takeda paid TWi Pharmaceuticals Inc. more than $9 million in cash to delay the launch of a generic version of Dexilant for 18 months after Takeda’s key patent on the drug expired and granted TWi exclusive rights to a generic version or its own abbreviated new drug application product. CVS argues this deal was an illegal “reverse payment” in violation of antitrust law that harmed CVS, which was forced to pay higher prices for Dexilant and the generic version that had no competition.
Netherlands
A. Dutch ACM
OptiGroup (via Hygos) cleared to buy Paardekooper assets; ACM also grants standstill waiver.
The Dutch Competition Authority (ACM) has approved OptiGroup’s acquisition of certain Paardekooper packaging assets and granted an exemption from the statutory standstill, allowing the parties to close early. The authority first issued the waiver on Sept. 19, 2025, and followed with the formal clearance decision on Sept. 29, 2025, finding minimal risk to effective competition given the presence of multiple alternative suppliers. This combination of fast-track waiver and unconditional clearance is relatively rare and may provide a useful precedent for time-sensitive deals in fragmented B2B markets.
B. Dutch Court Decisions
1. AG Dutch Supreme Court: recourse for ACM cartel fines within corporate groups may be possible under strict conditions.
On Sept. 19, 2025, the Advocate General (AG) at the Dutch Supreme Court delivered an opinion addressing whether a parent company that has paid a competition law fine the ACM imposes may seek recourse or indemnification from a (former) subsidiary that directly participated in the infringement. The issue arises from a dispute following a corporate restructuring, where the parent sought partial reimbursement of the fine, arguing that the subsidiary had been the operational entity responsible for the anticompetitive conduct.
The AG acknowledged that EU competition law holds undertakings jointly and severally liable but found that Dutch civil law may allow internal recourse under specific circumstances, provided that it does not undermine the deterrent effect of fines. The opinion identifies several potential legal bases, unjust enrichment, tort (onrechtmatige daad), or contractual allocation clauses, but stresses that any claim must be consistent with EU principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
In particular, the AG noted that recourse may be acceptable where the paying entity did not itself participate in the infringement, or where parties had previously agreed on internal risk allocation, but cautioned that courts should prevent “fine shifting” that would weaken enforcement. The case is now before the Dutch Supreme Court, whose ruling may clarify how far corporate groups can redistribute competition law liabilities under Dutch law, a matter of growing importance in follow-up litigation after ACM decisions.
2. Rotterdam District Court upholds ACM’s fine for resale price maintenance and information exchange in consumer electronics.
The District Court of Rotterdam dismissed an appeal by a consumer electronics supplier challenging an ACM fine of €7.94 million for resale price maintenance and horizontal information exchange. The ACM had found that between 2018 and 2020, the supplier coordinated retail pricing of televisions and audio systems through its selective distribution network and monitored compliance via online pricing tools.
The court upheld the ACM’s classification of the conduct as a restriction by object under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 6 Dutch Competition Act, stressing that the supplier’s actions went beyond legitimate vertical communications. According to the court, internal correspondence and retailer feedback demonstrated that the company’s pricing instructions eliminated retailers’ autonomy and effectively maintained resale prices across channels. Furthermore, the court agreed with the ACM that the exchanges of market data and pricing feedback between the supplier and retailers amounted to an unlawful flow of competitively sensitive information, further reducing uncertainty in the market. The court found that the ACM had adequately substantiated both the infringement and the proportionality of the fine, noting that no mitigating factors warranted a reduction.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
1. UOKiK charges Biedronka over misleading price promotions.
On Sept. 9, 2025, the President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President) brought charges against Jeronimo Martins Polska, operator of the Biedronka supermarket chain, for allegedly presenting promotional prices in a manner misleading to consumers. According to the UOKiK President, some of Biedronka’s bundling offers (such as “buy-one-get-one” or “buy three at a discount”) did not clearly indicate the actual unit price of the products. Prominent price tags displayed the price that only applied when buying two or more items, while the regular single-item price was reduced to fine print. This practice allegedly made it difficult for consumers to understand the actual price of a single product and to compare prices across retailers.
The UOKiK President also alleged so-called “false discounts.” In some cases, reductions were calculated from the current price rather than the lowest price in the preceding 30 days, contrary to the requirements of the EU Omnibus Directive. As a result, consumers were led to believe that savings were greater than they actually were. According to the UOKiK President, in some instances, the “discounted” price was even higher than the lowest price charged in the 30 days prior to the promotion.
The proceedings concern not only the company but also three members of its management board who, according to UOKiK, approved and supervised the design of price labels. The case forms part of UOKiK’s wider enforcement activity around price transparency, in which several other major retailers and platforms have already been investigated.
2. Possible price-fixing in the fruit market.
On Sept. 29, 2025, the UOKiK President announced that it had brought charges against five companies operating fruit collection centers in the Wielkopolska region and against one manager for suspected price-fixing in the purchase of soft fruits such as currants, cherries, and plums. The office believes that between 2022 and 2024, the companies exchanged sensitive price information and applied coordinated prices in their dealings with local farmers. According to the UOKiK President, this might have led to growers receiving artificially lowered prices for their produce over three consecutive harvest seasons.
Evidence was gathered during dawn raids, including at the headquarters of one of the firms. The UOKiK President also inspected several major processors—Austria Juice Poland, Döhler, and Rauch Polska—as well as other collection centers, to determine whether unlawful coordination may also have occurred at higher levels of the supply chain.
If confirmed, the conduct would be recognized as an unlawful price-fixing cartel. The companies may face fines of up to 10% of their turnover, while individuals may be fined up to PLN 2 million. As in other cartel cases, UOKiK reminded market participants of the availability of the leniency program, which offers immunity or significant reductions in fines to the undertakings or managers who come forward with evidence of collusion.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (AGCM)
1. €5 million fine for ALD Automotive over unfair commercial practices.
The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has fined ALD Automotive Italia S.r.l. €5 million for engaging in unfair commercial practices concerning an optional service offered under long-term car rental contracts.
According to AGCM, ALD failed to provide clear and comprehensive pre-contractual and contractual information regarding the nature, key features, and terms of the paid optional service designed to limit liability for vehicle damage. Consumers were not adequately informed that each damage event had to be promptly reported through the company’s online portal to benefit from the liability exclusion.
AGCM also found that the criteria distinguishing between ordinary wear and tear and chargeable damages were not transparently disclosed. Furthermore, AGCM deemed aggressive the practice of charging customers for damages identified only at the end-of-contract vehicle inspection—often minor and not easily visible—thereby preventing customers from relying on the expected liability limitation.
This decision highlights AGCM’s continued focus on transparency and fairness in consumer contracts, especially within the long-term car rental sector.
2. AGCM and CONSOB sign memorandum of understanding to cooperate on shared areas of interest.
On Sept. 16, 2025, AGCM and the Italian Securities and Exchange Commission (CONSOB) entered into a three-year memorandum of understanding aimed at strengthening cooperation in areas of overlapping interest.
Under the agreement, AGCM and CONSOB will exchange mutual referrals when, in the course of their respective investigations, facts emerge that may implicate a breach of the rules and regulations falling within the scope of the jurisdiction of the other authority. They will also periodically share information on their general enforcement strategies and ongoing activities.
Joint efforts may include coordinated fact-finding inquiries, co-prepared submissions to parliament and government on topics of mutual concern, and consultation during investigations launched under either authority’s mandate. A technical working group—composed of relevant office heads from both institutions—will convene as needed to oversee implementation, modification, or extension of the protocol.
The memorandum of understanding also contemplates cooperating in training initiatives and developing shared policy or regulatory proposals, including in cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence and crypto assets.
European Union
A. European Commission
The European Commission launches consultation on revised rules for technology transfer agreements.
The European Commission published draft revisions to the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) and its accompanying guidelines and invited stakeholders to submit comments. Technology transfer agreements, such as patent or software licenses, are often pro-competitive because they facilitate the diffusion of innovation, but they may also include restrictions that raise antitrust concerns. The TTBER creates a safe harbor by exempting agreements that comply with specified conditions, aiming to provide legal certainty under Article 101 TFEU.
The proposed updates reflect market changes and recent case law. They include clarifications on market share thresholds (with a longer grace period when parties exceed the limits), modifications to the safe harbor for technology pools to ensure transparency and compliance, and new guidance on Licensing Negotiation Groups to help distinguish legitimate collective bargaining from buyer cartels. For the first time, the guidelines also cover data licensing, reflecting the growing importance of data in innovation and production. Stakeholders have until Oct. 23, 2025, to comment, with final rules expected before the current TTBER expires on April 30, 2026.
B. CJEU Decisions
1. The CJEU clarifies procedural rights and effectiveness in follow-on damages litigation (Case C-253/23, ASG 2 v North Rhine-Westphalia).
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in ASG 2 v North Rhine-Westphalia (C-253/23), a preliminary ruling from the Regional Court of Dortmund concerning the interplay between EU competition law and the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU). The case arose from a follow-on claim in which ASG 2, a special-purpose vehicle, had acquired and bundled damage claims from several sawmills allegedly harmed by a wood procurement cartel. The referring court sought guidance on how national procedural rules governing access to evidence and defendants’ rights of defense must be applied to ensure the effectiveness of Article 101 TFEU.
The CJEU held that national courts must interpret domestic rules on disclosure and burden of proof in a manner that does not make it excessively difficult to enforce competition-law damages. At the same time, defendants retain the right to contest the relevance or confidentiality of evidence, provided that proportionality is observed. The judgment reinforces the need for national courts to strike a careful balance between protecting business secrets and safeguarding claimants’ ability to obtain compensation.
2. The CJEU rules on limitation periods in competition damages actions (Case C-21/24, CP v Nissan Iberia).
On Sept. 4, 2025, the CJEU issued a landmark ruling in CP v Nissan Iberia (C-21/24), interpreting limitation periods for follow-on damages claims under EU competition law. The CJEU held that the limitation period for bringing a civil action cannot begin to run while the underlying infringement decision of a national competition authority is still subject to judicial review (i.e., it may only start when the decision becomes final and binding).
The decision provides clarity for claimants and defendants in member-state courts, ensuring that victims of anticompetitive conduct have a realistic window to seek compensation once administrative proceedings have concluded.
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.