In This Issue1
United States | Japan | Mexico | Poland | Italy | The Netherlands | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. FTC finalizes consent order requiring divestitures in Valvoline-Greenbriar transaction.
On May 7, 2026, the FTC finalized a consent order resolving antitrust concerns arising from Valvoline Inc.’s acquisition of approximately 200 quick-lube oil change locations from private equity firm Greenbriar Equity Fund V., L.P. The FTC alleged that the transaction would eliminate competition in 25 local markets where Valvoline and Greenbriar’s subsidiary, Oil Changers, directly compete to provide quick-lube oil change services. To address these concerns, the final order requires the divestiture of 45 quick-lube oil change shops to Main Street Auto LLC, which will continue operating the locations under the Oil Changers brand.
2. FTC seeks pause in appeal over merger filing rule overhaul.
On May 19, 2026, the Fifth Circuit granted the FTC’s motion to abate its appeal of a district court decision invalidating the agency’s revised Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) merger filing requirements. The request follows the FTC and DOJ's March 2026 call for public comments on potential changes to the reporting requirements, with a decision on next steps expected by the end of 2026. The FTC stated that pausing the appeal would promote judicial efficiency while the agencies evaluate whether to revise and potentially reissue the rules through a new rulemaking process. The case is abated until Dec. 31, 2026.
The agencies’ March 2026 request for information (RFI) seeks comments not only on the vacated 2025 HSR Form, but also on whether additional revisions are warranted to reduce burdens on nonproblematic transactions while improving the agencies’ ability to assess potentially anticompetitive deals. The agencies specifically requested feedback on the revised form’s information and document requirements, whether current reporting thresholds and waiting period requirements remain appropriate, and whether certain longstanding exemptions, including the “solely for investment” exemption and exemptions applicable to real estate, foreign investments, and minority acquisitions, should be modified. Comments on the RFI were due May 26, 2026, and the agencies have stated that the feedback will help shape any future HSR rulemaking.
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. DOJ highlights healthcare affordability and competition reinforcement priorities.
In remarks on May 19, 2026, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole Sarrine emphasized that healthcare remains a top enforcement priority for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division because of its importance to American households and the broader economy. She stated that the Division is focusing its resources on conduct that increases healthcare costs, highlighting recent lawsuits against OhioHealth and NewYork-Presbyterian that challenge contractual restrictions allegedly limiting competition from lower-cost health plans and restricting price transparency. Sarrine also pointed to the Division’s recent settlement in UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of Amedisys, which required the divestiture of at least 164 home health and hospice locations to preserve competition. Addressing pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), she noted concerns related to industry concentration, vertical integration, pricing opacity, and potential self-preferencing, while emphasizing that the Division has not reached conclusions regarding any specific conduct. She also discussed recent administration and legislative initiatives aimed at increasing transparency and lowering prescription drug costs and encouraged industry participants to provide information regarding potential anticompetitive practices in healthcare markets.
2. DOJ Antitrust Division criminal head open to criminal charges for AI-related pricing collusion in certain circumstances.
On May 14, 2026, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement Daniel Glad delivered remarks addressing the Antitrust Division’s approach to algorithmic pricing and artificial intelligence. Glad emphasized that the use of software, algorithms, or large language models does not alter the fundamental antitrust principle that competitors must make independent pricing decisions, stating that “software cannot launder collusion.” While discussing recent civil enforcement involving a pricing software provider, Glad stressed that the availability of a civil remedy should not be interpreted as a view that algorithmic conduct falls outside the scope of criminal antitrust enforcement. Rather, he explained that where evidence demonstrates an agreement among competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or otherwise replace independent decision making with shared competitive intelligence, “criminal charges are on the table.” Glad further suggested that the Division is actively evaluating how traditional conspiracy principles apply to AI-enabled pricing systems and warned that firms using tools that rely on competitors’ confidential inputs should expect scrutiny from criminal enforcers.
3. Acting Antitrust Division head vows continuity in approach to M&A review.
On May 7, 2026, Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi delivered remarks outlining the Antitrust Division’s approach to merger enforcement. Assefi emphasized continuity rather than a shift in enforcement philosophy. He reiterated the Division’s focus on affordability and competition in sectors that directly affect consumers, stressed the importance of complete and timely HSR compliance, encouraged parties to engage substantively with staff early in the review process, and cautioned that claims regarding AI, technological disruption, or changing market dynamics must be supported by evidence rather than speculation. Assefi also confirmed the Division’s renewed use of timing agreements and reaffirmed a preference for structural remedies over behavioral commitments where settlements are appropriate.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Risner v. Law School Admission Counsil Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04461 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2026).
On April 29, 2026, Judge John F. Murphy from a federal district court in Pennsylvania dismissed an antitrust lawsuit challenging the Law School Admission Council’s (LSAC) alleged price fixing for U.S. law school application fees. The complaint alleges that the LSAC used grants to law schools as a “kickback” to entice them to use the LSAC electronic application platform, which the plaintiff claimed charges ultracompetitive prices for students applying to law schools. Judge Murphy held that apart from conclusory allegations, the plaintiff failed to allege there was a cognizable “market” or “product” given that each law school is different and therefore not interchangeable. Similarly, the court held the plaintiff failed to allege the law schools themselves conspired to set prices. The court allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to replead to address these issues.
2. Block v. Canepa, Case No. 25-3305 (6th Cir. May 7, 2026).
On May 7, 2026, the Sixth Circuit struck down the State of Ohio’s law prohibiting out-of-state retailers from selling alcohol directly to consumers. The challenged statute prohibited out-of-state retailers from shipping wine directly to Ohio residences, claiming the restriction was to protect health and ensure that the state collected appropriate taxes on wine sales. The Sixth Circuit found the law unconstitutional because it improperly targets out-of-state business, noting that the statute’s exceptions — such as for wineries or consumers who bought alcohol while out of state — undermined the state’s proffered rationale.
3. Element Biosciences Inc. v. Illumina , Case No. 5:25-cv-08026 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2026).
A U.S. district court in California held biotech startup Element Biosciences had not sufficiently alleged Illumina, Inc. had engaged in anticompetitive pricing and improper exclusivity agreements for the sale of DNA sequencing products. Element alleged Illumina offered steep discounts on its products — effectively marketing the product below cost — in exchange for hospitals, labs, and drugmakers to enter into exclusivity agreements. According to Element, this scheme was designed to prevent competitors from entering the market. The court, however, held that Element had not identified any specific contract or provision that created this exclusive agreement, nor had it offered any evidence that Illumina was in fact marketing below its costs.
Japan
Japan’s Supreme Court Finalizes Tabelog Antitrust Dispute, Leaving Tokyo High Court’s Notable Ruling Intact
On March 5, 2026, the First Petty Court of the Supreme Court of Japan dismissed the final appeal and petition for review filed by Hanryumura, the operator of restaurant franchise KollaBo. The unanimous four‑justice decision brings a definitive end to the dispute against Kakaku.com, the operator of the restaurant review platform Tabelog. By declining to grant a full hearing, Japan’s apex court left the Tokyo High Court’s ruling fully intact and legally binding.
The dispute began after Kakaku.com implemented an unannounced algorithm update in 2019, altering how chain restaurants were scored. Hanryumura alleged that the update caused the average ratings of its 21 locations to drop by approximately 0.2 points, resulting in reduced revenue. The company claimed this constituted an Abuse of Superior Bargaining Position (ASBP) and unjust discriminatory treatment under Japan’s Antimonopoly Act (AMA).
The Tokyo District Court initially ruled in favor of the restaurant chain, ordering Kakaku.com to pay ¥38.4 million in damages. However, the Tokyo High Court overturned the lower court’s decision in full. While acknowledging that the platform operator held a “superior bargaining position,” the court found the algorithm update justified to eliminate the distorting effects of fraudulent reviews. The court also noted that business users should reasonably anticipate fluctuations in rating criteria. Japan’s Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding no statutory reasons to revisit it, thus concluding the litigation.
Mexico
1. Mexico’s National Antimonopoly Commission Issues Draft 2026–2030 institutional program and signals priority enforcement sectors.
In May 2026, Mexico’s National Antimonopoly Commission (NAC) published a draft of its 2026-2030 Institutional Program, outlining objectives, strategic priorities, and performance targets for the agency in the next five years. GT’s complete analysis of this draft is available in a May GT Alert. To summarize, the draft states that high market concentrations are costing Mexican households 15.7% of their income, with lower income households losing as much as 30.9%. The program seeks to address these concentrations — particularly in the financial, telecommunication, transport, food, healthcare, and public procurement sectors — through both merger review and investigations, including potential criminal cases.
2. National Antitrust Commission files class-action lawsuit for companies to repair the damage caused to LP gas consumers.
On April 24, 2026, Mexico’s National Antitrust Commission (CNA) filed a class-action lawsuit against 53 liquid petroleum gas (LP Gas) distribution companies that allegedly engaged in collusive practices in Mexico City, the State of Mexico, and various localities in the states of Colima, Tamaulipas, and Sinaloa for over 10 years. According to the CNA, the action derives from a prior investigation and sanctioning of an alleged collusive agreement among Grupo Soni, Grupo Simsa, Grupo Nieto, Grupo Tomza, Grupo Global Gas, and Gas Metropolitano. According to the CNA, these companies agreed to manipulate prices and divide customers among themselves in the aforementioned markets, which allegedly resulted in overcharges to consumers for an estimated damage exceeding 13 billion pesos.
Regardless of the administrative fines already imposed, the CNA intends to obtain a ruling that would compel the companies to grant discounts on the price of LP Gas to all consumers in the affected areas, as a mechanism for repairing the harm that, according to the authority, was allegedly caused to them. The CNA indicated that, with this action, it reaffirms its commitment to a competition policy that uses all its tools to sanction companies that, in its opinion, generate tangible benefits for consumers.
Poland
A. President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
1. UOKiK fines flooring companies for RPM and market sharing.
On May 4, 2026, UOKiK fined flooring manufacturer Decora and its distributor Bel-Pol a total of PLN 33.9 million (approximately $ 9.3 million/€8 million) for illegal price-fixing and market-sharing. Decora allegedly imposed minimum resale prices for vinyl panels, underlays, skirting boards, and floor profiles, distributing mandatory price lists and penalizing non‑compliance through withdrawal of discounts, suspension of deliveries, or removal of in‑store displays. Bel‑Pol allegedly enforced these pricing rules among its downstream customers and reported deviations to Decora. According to UOKiK, the parties also agreed to allocate wholesale customers between themselves.
UOKiK also fined two managers for their direct involvement in the allegedly anti-competitive practices and reduced Bel‑Pol’s fine, though leniency immunity was unavailable as the application was submitted only after the dawn raids. The decision is not yet final.
2. UOKiK fines five fruit collection companies for price-fixing at the expense of local farmers.
On April 15, 2026, UOKiK fined five fruit collection companies — Fructis, Damex, Silver‑Trans, Kam‑Pol and Kalbrok — and one manager a total of PLN 1.6 million (approximately $439,000/€EUR 370,000) for price‑fixing that allegedly suppressed purchase prices paid to farmers. The decision is not yet final. Key evidence was obtained during a dawn raid at Fructis’s premises, where investigators recovered messaging app communications confirming that the companies regularly exchanged information on purchase prices and coordinated to maintain them at artificially low levels.
The case forms part of UOKiK’s broader enforcement activity in agricultural markets, following longstanding complaints from farmers regarding pricing practices. UOKiK also encouraged potential private enforcement actions and indicated that separate preliminary investigations are ongoing against other fruit processors and collection operators, though not yet targeted at specific undertakings.
Italy
A. Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA initiates investigation into alleged anticompetitive agreement in the construction materials sector.
On May 4, 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) announced an investigation against Mapei S.p.A., Fin-Firel S.p.A., Kerakoll S.p.A., Sika AG, and Sika Italia S.p.A. regarding a suspected anticompetitive horizontal agreement extending at least as far back as 2021, regarding the market for chemical products for the construction industry. The investigation stems from a complaint filed by a competitor, which gained access to evidence through a criminal proceeding initiated before the Public Prosecutor's Office of Turin.
Documentation from this criminal case revealed that senior representatives of Mapei, Kerakoll, and Sika Italia allegedly held secret meetings at a hotel in Piacenza in 2021 to coordinate commercial strategies concerning major national wholesale clients. This alleged coordination aimed to align price lists, limit discount levels, and set restrictive payment terms. According to ICA, these practices allegedly exploited a period of high demand and inelastic market conditions triggered by post-pandemic recovery and public incentives, notably the Italian “Superbonus 110%.” By allegedly artificially inflating wholesale prices, the companies reportedly transferred the financial burden to final consumers, with a portion of these costs being indirectly subsidized by the Italian State through fiscal detractions.
The parties have a 60-day period from the notification of the ICA’s decision to exercise their right to be heard. The investigation is scheduled to conclude by Dec. 31, 2027.
2. ICA fines Amica Chips, Pata, and Preziosi Food over EUR 23 million for anti-competitive agreement
On April 28, 2026, the ICA imposed fines on food producers Amica Chips S.p.A. (EUR 8,239,210), Pata S.p.A. (EUR 7,555,387), and Preziosi Food S.p.A. (EUR 7,503,550) for allegedly engaging in an anticompetitive agreement in the market for private-label salty snacks supplied to the Large-Scale Retail Trade (GDO), in violation of Article 101 TFEU. According to the ICA, the three companies implemented a single, complex, and continuous agreement to divide the supply of salty snacks produced for the GDO by coordinating their commercial policies.
The ICA applied its leniency program, granting Pata and Amica Chips a reduction in their fines in recognition of the significant evidence they provided to prove the infringement. Furthermore, for the first time since its introduction, the ICA utilized the settlement procedure provided under Article 14-quater of Law no. 287/1990. The successful outcome of this procedure allowed all three companies to benefit from an additional reduction in their respective penalties.
The Netherlands
A. Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
1. ACM closes investigation into two international software suppliers.
On May 1, 2026, the ACM announced the closure of its investigation into a large, internationally operating software supplier active in the Dutch business-to-business market. The investigation, opened on Sept. 30, 2025, focused on whether the company was abusing a dominant position by imposing unreasonable prices and conditions on its business customers. The ACM found insufficient evidence to establish infringement and decided to discontinue its inquiry.
The ACM emphasized that businesses with dominant positions may not abuse such a position. Abuse may entail, for example, charging unreasonable prices or setting unfair conditions, because this leads to higher costs for their buyers and, ultimately, to higher prices and less innovation for consumers.
2. ACM publishes final report on pet care market study.
On April 30, 2026, the ACM published the final report of its market study into the provision of veterinary care in the Netherlands, following a public consultation on the December 2025 draft report. The ACM’s central finding is that the pet care market has become increasingly commercialized, giving rise to a risk that financial incentives may cause veterinary professionals to stray from the best interests of the animal and its owner. The market study identifies insufficient choice and lack of rivalry in a number of Dutch regions as a structural problem.
The ACM’s recommendations include (i) a statutory prohibition on revenue- and profit-based incentives for veterinarians, (ii) extend the ACM’s reviewing powers to cover below threshold transactions in concentrated local markets, (iii) measures to improve the availability and transparency of out-of-hours emergency care, and (iv) reinforcing responsible pet ownership through education and stricter regulation of breeders and sellers, with specific attention to lower-income households.
European Union
A. European Commission
1. European Commission charges two cartels of synthetic turf producers in the Netherlands and Germany.
On May 21, 2026, the European Commission sent Statements of Objections to several companies active in the synthetic turf sector, setting out its preliminary view that they had engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the Netherlands and Germany, in violation of Article 101 TFEU. The case involves two separate alleged cartels, both linked to the recycling of end-of-life artificial sports surfaces, and follows unannounced inspections conducted by the European Commission in June 2023.
The first alleged cartel concerns the Netherlands, whereby the European Commission’s preliminary finding is that Dutch companies Oranjewoud and TenCate Grass, together with Belgian-based Sports & Leisure Group (and its subsequently spun-off installation subsidiary, Domo Sports Grass Nederland), coordinated their commercial conduct in the synthetic turf sector from 2019 onwards. The alleged conduct is linked to GBN-AGR (now known as AGR), a Dutch recycling company in which Oranjewoud, TenCate Grass, and Sports & Leisure Group all hold shares. The European Commission considers that the companies may have agreed not to compete with GBN-AGR in recycling services, to use GBN-AGR's services exclusively, and to structure GBN-AGR’s pricing in a manner that disadvantaged rival recyclers. The alleged objective was to secure and entrench GBN-AGR’s position in the recycling market, thereby foreclosing third-party competition.
The second alleged cartel concerns Germany and involves Oranjewoud and German-based Sport Group. The European Commission’s preliminary view is that these two companies, while exploring a possible cooperation for the German market, engaged in anticompetitive conduct between 2020 and 2023.
2. Grail files €33 million damages claim against European Commission over unlawful Illumina/Grail review.
On April 1, 2026, U.S. biotech company Grail, Inc. filed an action for damages in the amount of €33.1 million against the European Commission before the EU General Court (case T-211/26). The claim relates to the European Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over Grail’s acquisition by Illumina under the Article 22 EUMR referral mechanism, which the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) found to be unlawful in its landmark ruling of Sept. 12, 2024.
By way of background: in 2021, the European Commission decided to review Illumina’s proposed acquisition of Grail in 2021 despite the deal falling below both EU and national merger notification thresholds, ultimately prohibiting the transaction in September 2022. During the review, the European Commission also imposed a €432 million gun-jumping fine on Illumina for closing the transaction before clearance. Grail was ultimately spun off from Illumina in June 2024. In September 2024, the CJEU held that the European Commission had no legal basis to accept a referral from a Member State that lacked national jurisdiction over the deal.
B. CJEU Decisions
1. CJEU Clarifies Jurisdiction Rules for Competition Damages Claims
In April 2026, the CJEU issued its preliminary ruling in the joined cases Electricity & Water Authority of the Government of Bahrain and Others (Power Cables, C-672/23) and Smurfit Kappa Europe and Others (Cardboard Packaging, C-673/23). Both cases arose from competition damages proceedings before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, in which claimants brought follow-on damages claims against Dutch intermediate holding companies that were not themselves named as addressees in the underlying infringement decisions.
The key holdings of the CJEU are as follows. First, the close-connection requirement under Article 8(1) Brussels I can be satisfied even where the anchor defendant was not an addressee in the infringement decision. It is sufficient that there are "serious indications" that the anchor defendant belongs to the same economic undertaking as the infringing entities.
Second, an intermediate holding company that merely holds and manages shares, without carrying out independent economic activities of its own, may nonetheless be held jointly and severally liable for a competition infringement if it exercised decisive influence over a subsidiary whose activities are directly connected to the subject matter of the infringement. Third, foreseeability is not an independent jurisdictional criterion, but an element of the overall close-connection analysis. Fourth, the merits of the claim need not be assessed at the jurisdictional stage, and a court may only disregard a claim as manifestly unfounded if there is “convincing evidence” of artificial satisfaction of Article 8(1) conditions. Fifth, harm suffered outside the EEA does not in itself render a claim inadmissible, provided a causal link to the infringing conduct is established. Sixth, Article 8(1) confers both international and territorial jurisdiction on the court of the anchor defendant's domicile.
See also our GT Alert on this ruling.
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.