In This Issue1
United States | The Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union | Japan
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. FTC agrees to horizontal Omnicom/IPG merger with behavioral ‘free speech’ commitment.
The FTC accepted a proposed consent order on June 23, 2025, that clears the way for Omnicom Group’s $13.5 billion acquisition of The Interpublic Group of Companies (IPG). The merger would combine the third and fourth largest competitors to create a new market leader in media buying services for advertisers. The FTC characterized the merger as moving from six competitors to five but entered into the consent order only to prohibit the combined firm from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising to certain media publishers based on the publisher’s political or ideological viewpoints. It did not require any divestiture. Chairman Ferguson’s statement on the deal cites a Congressional report discussing such potential collusion through an advertising trade group as reason for being “particularly vigilant” in the present transaction.
2. FTC clears Alimentation Couche-Tard’s acquisition of Giant Eagle GoGet stores with divestitures.
On June 26, 2025, the FTC announced a consent decree allowing Circle-K parent Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (ACT) to acquire over 200 retail fuel outlets from Giant Eagle with the divestiture of 34 Circle K locations and one Giant Eagle GetGo branded property to an FTC-approved buyer—an operator that would be a new entrant into the relevant local markets. According to the FTC, the merger would result in five or fewer market participants in each local market where a divestiture was required. Among other things, the consent decree requires ACT to provide prior notice before acquiring certain retail fuel stations in a confidential list, and that notice must provide information on all retail fuel outlets within five driving miles, who ACT monitored for pricing in the area, and its pricing strategy for those monitored stations.
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. DOJ settles HPE-Juniper Networks merger challenge with divestiture and AI source code licensing.
On June 28, 2025, the Justice Department reached a settlement allowing Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks to proceed, after initially suing to block the transaction in January. The settlement resolves concerns with enterprise-grade WLAN solutions by requiring HPE to divest its “Instant On” campus and branch WLAN business to a DOJ-approved buyer within 180 days. Additionally, the combined firm must conduct an auction and enter into up to two world-wide, perpetual, non-exclusive licenses of the source code for Juniper’s AI Ops for Mist, which is used in the Juniper WLAN products for automated network optimization. According to the DOJ, while the combined share of the parties would be less than 30%, the stronger second place competitor when combined with the leading competitor would hold over 70%, meaning the market is highly concentrated and would still be harmed in the Department’s view.
2. DOJ requires divestiture in Safran-Raytheon deal to preserve aerospace competition.
The DOJ announced on June 17, 2025, that Safran S.A. must divest its North American actuation business to resolve antitrust concerns arising from its proposed $1.8 billion acquisition of Collins Aerospace’s actuation and flight control business from Raytheon Corp. The settlement with DOJ requires Safran to divest assets previously acquired under a 2018 consent decree to another aerospace supplier. DOJ alleges the acquisition would reduce competition from trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators, which are critical aircraft components affecting safety and performance. The proposed remedy is intended to address concerns that the transaction would recombine divested assets and degrade price, quality, and innovation.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. In re: Tecfidera Antitrust Litig., 2025 WL 1755725, Case No. 1:24-cv-07387 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2025).
On June 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge April Perry dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against biotechnology company Biogen, Inc. alleging that Biogen violated antitrust laws by paying pharmacy benefit managers “to not promote or advantage” generic drug options over Biogen’s brand drug products. According to the plaintiffs, these payments foreclosed competition and disrupted state drug substitution laws because, as a result of Biogen’s payments, the generic drug option was placed in a disadvantageous price tier on the PBMs’ formularies compared to the name-brand product. In analyzing the complaint, the court focused on whether the allegations plausibly established that the payments had actually disrupted drug substitution laws, as well as whether the allegations plausibly pleaded that the disruption was “substantial” and actually prevented generic manufacturers from competing effectively with Biogen.
Ultimately, the plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficient because there were no allegations about how the drug substitution laws at issue actually work and no allegations explaining how plans select formularies from among any given PBM’s offerings. Significantly, “speculation will not do to bridge the gap from possible to plausible foreclosure.” The court granted Biogen’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend, as is Seventh Circuit practice on a first dismissal.
2. Coleman v. RealPage Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00093 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2025).
Kentucky filed a lawsuit against property management software company RealPage Inc. and various landlords on July 3, 2025, accusing each of engaging in a rent price-fixing scheme that “distorts” competition. The claims—which include unjust enrichment, violations of the Sherman Act, and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act—arise out of the defendants’ use of RealPage’s Revenue Management Solutions software. According to Kentucky, that software allows landlords to “sidestep vigorous competition to win renters’ business” because landlords share their private rental data with RealPage using the software, and then RealPage combines the data into an algorithm to recommend certain rent prices to the landlords, while continuing to monitor the landlords’ compliance with the recommendations. This follows similar lawsuits the federal government, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Washington have filed against RealPage.
Netherlands
Dutch Court Decision
Dutch Supreme Court rules on follow-on claims from a single, continuous breach of EU competition law and referral of preliminary questions to the CJEU.
The Dutch Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on June 20, 2025, addressing the applicable law for follow-on damages claims arising from a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law of the European cartel prohibition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The case pertains to the international cartels of truck manufacturers operating from 1997 to 2011 and airlines operating from 1999 to 2006 that coordinated prices, including fuel and security surcharges. The European Commission previously issued substantial fines to the entities involved, and various claims vehicles and direct purchasers now seek compensation for damages incurred.
The Dutch Supreme Court has referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on whether follow-on damages claims should be treated as a single continuous tort, allowing claimants to choose the applicable law under Article 6(3)(b) of Regulation Rome II, or if the applicable law should be determined separately for each individual transaction under Article 4(1) of the former Dutch Conflict of Laws Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court seeks guidance from the CJEU on whether Member States may alternatively classify each transaction or harm event separately, and how the temporal scope and application of Rome II should be interpreted in these complex cross-border cartel damage claims.
These questions aim to clarify critical issues, including whether EU law, particularly the principle of effectiveness, requires that a “single continuous infringement” be treated as one unified wrongful act giving rise to one consolidated damages claim per injured party.
Poland
A. Bus Operators Accused of Bid-Rigging in a Public Tender
On June 16, 2025, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President) brought antitrust charges against 11 bus operators allegedly conspiring to rig the largest public-transport tender ever held in the Upper Silesia–Zagłębie metropolitan area in Poland. The value of the tender was PLN 1.3 billion (approx. EUR 305.5 million / USD 357.5 million) and it covered passenger services for 2022–2029.
According to evidence gathered during dawn raids, the operators may have formed consortia for the sole purpose of pre-allocating routes and ensuring that each party retained its existing service area, rather than competing with prices and service quality. Internal correspondence and consortium agreements indicate that the defendants allegedly agreed in advance which consortium would win particular lots, evading competitive pressure and inflating costs for the contracting authority.
Such conduct, if confirmed, would constitute a typical bid-rigging cartel, exposing the companies that infringed the competition law to fines up to 10% of their annual turnover.
B. UOKiK Brings Charges Over Suspected Collusion in Agricultural Machinery Distribution
On June 23, 2025, the UOKiK President pressed charges against AGCO Polska (the exclusive Polish distributor of Valtra, Fendt, and Massey Ferguson agricultural machinery); 10 authorized dealers; and five managers for suspected market-sharing and price-fixing practices. According to UOKiK, dawn-raid evidence suggests that AGCO and the dealers divided Poland into exclusive territories and agreed not to serve customers from the others’ areas. Farmers seeking a better deal from an out-of-area dealer were allegedly redirected to their “local” seller or quoted artificially high prices. According to the UOKiK President, dealers may have shared sensitive pricing information and warned AGCO whenever a competitor considered breaking the pact and selling vehicles outside its territory.
The scheme allegedly denied farmers meaningful choices and competitive pricing for tractors, combines, and spare parts. The companies involved may be fined up to 10% of their annual turnover, while the five individuals charged—including three current or former AGCO managers—may face personal penalties up to PLN 2 million each.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. Unfair commercial practice: ICA launches investigation against DeepSeek.
On June 16, 2025, ICA initiated a formal investigation against Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd. and Beijing DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., (collectively, DeepSeek). ICA alleged that DeepSeek failed to adequately inform users about the risk of so-called “hallucinations”— instances where their AI models generate inaccurate or misleading information. According to the ICA, the lack of a clear and immediate disclaimer may constitute a misleading commercial practice under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Italian Consumer Code.
ICA contended that the only warning provided (“AI-generated, for reference only”) is overly generic, insufficiently visible, and exclusively in English, even when users interact in Italian. Furthermore, relevant warnings are buried in the terms of use, which are not accessible on the main pages and also only in English. ICA argued this omission might mislead consumers into placing unwarranted trust in the outputs, potentially influencing critical decisions in areas such as health, finance, or law, undermining consumers’ ability to make informed commercial decisions.
Given these concerns, ICA has launched proceedings to verify the alleged violations and requested DeepSeek to provide detailed information on their services, user base in Italy, and corporate structure within 30 days. ICA has also reminded the companies of the legal consequences of failing to respond, including possible administrative fines. The procedure is set to conclude within 270 days and a final decision will follow based on the information received and further assessments.
2. Unfair commercial practice: ICA imposes fine of almost EUR 3 million on Virgin Active Italy.
On June 18, 2025, ICA closed an investigation into Virgin Active Italia—the national branch of the international personal fitness and exercise company—imposing a fine of EUR 3 million. The investigation started in December 2024, following numerous reports from consumers who alleged that Virgin Active provided consumers with inadequate, unclear, and insufficient information regarding the terms and conditions of subscription, automatic renewal, cancellation, and early termination of their agreements. Furthermore, the company allegedly failed to provide timely notification regarding the automatic renewal of subscriptions, the deadline for consumers to exercise formal cancellation rights, and did not offer adequate information concerning price increases implemented throughout 2024. Therefore, ICA considered the conduct an unfair commercial practice in violation of Articles 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 (letter f), and 65-bis of the Italian Consumer Code.
3. Unfair commercial practice: influencer marketing.
On June 11, 2025, ICA closed investigations against six influencers (Luca Marani, Alessandro Berton, Hamza Mourai, Davide Caiazzo, Luca De Stefani, and Michele Leka). For the first four individuals, the proceedings were closed with commitments, while De Stefani and Leka were fined a total of EUR 65,000.
ICA initiated the investigations in July 2024 when it found that these influencers posted photos and/or videos on social media platforms and websites offering paid advice on “easy and secure high earnings” based on the “winning model” they themselves embodied, without indicating any form of advertisement to inform consumers of the promotional nature of the content. Furthermore, relevant information for purchasing decisions, such as the cost of goods and/or services offered, was not sufficiently highlighted.
In particular, the violations ICA sanctioned concerned: (a) promoting online earnings through exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, including endorsements from brands and media without proper advertising disclaimers or essential consumer information; (b) artificially inflating online credibility by using fake Instagram followers and publishing only unverifiable positive reviews and testimonials; (c) promoting misleading financial advice on TikTok, suggesting that significant economic results could be easily achieved. Commitments included removing misleading expressions related to easy or risk-free earnings from their online platforms, adding clear advertising disclaimers, eliminating non-authentic followers, and monitoring their online activities to enhance compliance with consumer protection regulations.
European Union
A. European Commission
The European Commission opens in-depth investigation into Mars’ proposed acquisition of Kellanova.
The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation (Phase II) into Mars’ proposed acquisition of Kellanova. Mars is an international supplier of popular snack-food brands (including chocolates and chewing gums), while Kellanova produces various snack products such as Pringles chips and cereals under the Kellogg brand. The European Commission expressed preliminary concerns that the merger would significantly reduce competition in the EEA and increase Mars’ bargaining power with retailers. According to the European Commission’s preliminary findings, the transaction would merge multiple “must-have” snack and breakfast brands under Mars’ already extensive portfolio, giving retailers little choice but to accept less favorable commercial terms. The European Commission noted that supermarkets may be particularly vulnerable, as consumers typically prefer one-stop shopping, potentially limiting retailers’ flexibility to reject Mars’ terms without losing essential products.
The European Commission has until Oct. 31, 2025, to issue a final decision.
B. CJEU Decision
The CJEU confirms the Commission’s approval of RWE’s acquisition of certain E.ON assets.
The CJEU has confirmed the European Commission's approval of RWE's acquisition of certain electricity generation assets from E.ON, upholding the General Court's previous ruling. This decision follows a complex asset swap deal the two German energy companies announced in March 2018, involving three separate concentration operations.
The European Commission initially approved the acquisition, concluding there were no manifest errors in assessing its compatibility with EU competition law. However, several German municipal authorities challenged this approval, arguing that the deal significantly impacted competition in local energy markets. The General Court rejected these challenges in judgments issued on May 17, 2023.
On appeal, the CJEU dismissed most of these challenges, upholding the General Court’s findings that the transaction did not constitute a “single concentration” and confirming the absence of manifest errors by the European Commission. In parallel, the CJEU overturned procedural dismissals regarding some municipalities’ claims due to insufficient reasoning but ultimately dismissed their actions on substantive grounds, ruling they failed to demonstrate significant harm to their market positions.
Japan
JFTC Releases Report on Generative AI.
On June 6, 2025, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) compiled the Report Regarding Generative AI, Version 1.0.
While acknowledging generative AI’s potential for increased productivity and innovation, the report noted risks such as intellectual property infringement and the spread of misinformation. This report aims to encourage a fair competitive environment and to understand the current state of the generative AI market.
Specifically, the report underscores the following:
- Access Restrictions and Exclusion of Competitors: In the AI market, as is generally true in all markets, when an enterprise that has established a strong position for computing resources—such as hardware, data, and specialized human resources—restricts access through anticompetitive acts, new entrants and existing competitors face difficulty securing alternative suppliers, which raises the costs of business activities and undermines the motivation to enter the market or develop new products. When there is a risk where new entrants or existing competitors are excluded (i.e., the market foreclosure effect), this may become an issue under the Antimonopoly Act (private monopolization, unfair trade practice(s) (General Designation 14 (Interference with a competitor's transactions))).
- Tying: If a generative AI model provider has a strong position in a specific digital service market, integrating generative AI models into that digital service and offering it to users as a new digital service may make it difficult for other generative AI model providers or new entrants seeking to offer similar generative AI models to secure customers, thereby raising the costs of business activities and discouraging new entrants and the development of new models. When there is a risk that existing competitors or new entrants will be excluded from the digital-service market (market foreclosure effect), this may become an issue under the Antimonopoly Act (private monopolization, unfair trade practice(s) (General Designation 10 (tie-in sales, etc.))).
Going forward, the JFTC plans to collaborate with relevant ministries and agencies to promote an international exchanges of opinions.
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.