In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | The Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
FTC reopens and sets aside merger settlements related to oil company directors.
On July 17, 2025, the FTC set aside final consent orders related to the Chevron-Hess merger and the Exxon-Pioneer merger that restricted certain executives from serving as directors for the companies post-close. In its September 2024 action, the FTC restricted Hess’ CEO from sitting on Chevron’s board of directors due to his communications that allegedly supported the “output stabilizing agenda” of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Similarly, in May 2024, the FTC entered a consent decree blocking Pioneer’s CEO from serving on the Exxon board due to allegations that he had “campaigned” to organize output reductions between U.S. and OPEC producers. Final Orders were approved in both matters on Jan. 17, 2025, over the objections of now-Chairman Ferguson.
Following petitions earlier this year, the Commission set aside its prior orders, finding that the complaints failed to allege a Section 7 violation, failed to allege that the relevant acquisition would be anticompetitive, increase market concentration or the potential for oil producer coordination, and ignored the Merger Guidelines and “decades of precedent.”
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. DOJ voluntarily dismisses enforcement case against American Express Global Business Travel and CWT Holdings.
On July 29, 2025, American Express Global Business Travel (Amex GBT) announced that the DOJ had voluntarily dismissed its complaint challenging Amex GBT’s acquisition of business, travel, and meetings solutions provider CWT Holdings. The DOJ had previously filed a complaint on Jan. 10, 2025, attempting to block the $570 million acquisition.
2. DOJ allows T-Mobile’s acquisition of UScellular to proceed.
On July 10, 2025, the DOJ announced it was closing its investigation of T-Mobile’s proposed acquisition of UScellular without any enforcement action. However, the DOJ’s closing statement did take note of consolidation in the wireless industry. According to the DOJ, despite the “too-familiar pattern” of regional cellular companies “vanishing” in favor of national brands, the consumer benefits of the proposed transaction outweighed potential harm to competition. In particular, the DOJ considered improvements in network quality for UScellular customers and the commercial and competitive realities in a market characterized by continued capital investments in technology. The DOJ stated that, independently, UScellular would be unable to keep up with increased costs and also noted that T-Mobile had an integration plan that would both increase rural connectivity for existing T-Mobile customers and increase network speeds for UScellular subscribers.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Universal Turbine Parts, LLC v. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., No. 2:24-cv-02021-MRP, [53] (E.D. Penn. July 30, 2025).
On July 30, 2025, the court denied Pratt & Whitney’s motion to dismiss Universal Turbine (UTP)’s antitrust complaint. UTP alleges that Pratt & Whitney monopolized the aftermarket for serviceable jet-engine parts by refusing to sell used parts and withholding certification documents. The court rejected the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint plausibly alleges an aftermarket, antitrust injury, and unlawful refusal-to-deal conduct. The court rejected Pratt’s argument that UTP was simply seeking access to proprietary technology. The ruling allows discovery and shows how aftermarket markets must be pled in an antitrust case.
2. Brantmeier v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No 1:24-cv-00238, [99] (M.D.N.C. July 28, 2025).
On July 28, 2025, the court granted class certification to two groups of current and former college tennis players challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s limits on athlete compensation. The complaint alleges that the NCAA and its member conferences illegally agreed not to pay players for their name, image, and likeness rights and cap educational benefits. In granting class certification, the court found plaintiffs presented a viable method of proving antitrust injury on a class-wide basis and allowed both damages and injunctive classes to proceed.
3. Dai v. SAS Institute Inc., No. 4:24-cv-02537, [137] (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2025).
Consumers filed a proposed class action claiming hotel chains conspired to inflate room prices by sharing data through a third-party revenue-management tool. On July 18, 2025, the court dismissed the suit without prejudice, finding plaintiffs failed to allege horizontal agreement or facts showing concerted action. The court reasoned that merely adopting the same pricing software amounts to parallel conduct rather than a conspiracy. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend to show coordinated conduct or communication among the hotel chains.
Mexico
Suspension of Competition Investigation Procedures Following Recent Competition Law Reforms
On July 16, 2025, a “Decree amending, adding to, and repealing various provisions of the Federal Economic Competition Law (LFCE) and the Federal Law on State-Owned Entities” was published in the Official Gazette, entering into force on July 17, 2025. This decree is part of broader constitutional reforms aimed at organizational simplification within the Mexican government.
Key Points for the Competition Community
- Suspension of Deadlines: As of July 17, 2025, all deadlines and timeframes for investigation procedures and related proceedings that the competition authority’s Investigative Authority conducts are suspended. This suspension will remain in place until the Plenary of the new National Competition Commission (CNA) is formally established.
- Affected Procedures: The suspension applies to all investigation files and any related procedures, pending complaints (under Article 67 of the LFCE), conditional benefit procedures (Article 103), procedures for classifying protected information, and new complaints or requests under Articles 67, 94, 96, 100, and 103 of the LFCE, as well as requests for information classification.
- Effective Period: All deadlines and timeframes will resume the day after the CNA Plenary is officially established.
- Legal Certainty: This suspension was publicly announced to provide clarity and legal certainty to economic agents and interested parties.
Implications
During this transitional period, COFECE will continue to exercise its functions under the existing LFCE; however, all investigations and complaints are effectively paused. Companies and legal advisors should monitor developments regarding the establishment of the CNA Plenary and await further official updates regarding the reactivation of procedures.
Netherlands
Dutch Court Decision
The CBb confirms ACM fines imposed on cigarette manufacturers.
The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) upheld the Dutch competition authority (ACM)’s fine in the aggregate amount of €82 million that it imposed on four cigarette manufacturers for anticompetitive behavior between 2008 and 2011. The manufacturers, Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Van Nelle Tabak Nederland, and Japan Tobacco International, engaged in an indirect information exchange about future cigarette prices and upcoming product launches through shared retail channels.
The manufacturers argued that their conduct was driven by retailers independently circulating price information, rather than active collusion. However, the CBb rejected this defense, concluding that they deliberately participated in and maintained a collective practice of information exchange, which violates the cartel prohibition.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
1. UOKiK brings charges in a labor market collusion case involving a major chain of discount stores and transport companies.
On July 14, 2025, the UOKiK President brought charges against Jeronimo Martins Polska, the operator of the Biedronka chain of discount stores, 32 transport companies, and eight individuals for participating in an alleged no-poach agreement.
According to the UOKiK President, the parties agreed to restrict drivers’ ability to switch between transport companies servicing Biedronka’s distribution centers. Drivers looking for new employers may have been denied employment or faced delayed onboarding. Biedronka is alleged to have coordinated and monitored the questioned practices. The UOKiK President claims that such arrangements may have reduced the risk of losing employees and discouraged employers from increasing wages.
UOKiK is increasing scrutiny of anticompetitive practices in the labor market. Under Polish law, parties to an anticompetitive agreement may be fined up to 10% of their turnover, and the individuals responsible may face personal fines of up to PLN 2 million.
2. Online sales ban leads to antitrust fine for Scott Sportech Poland.
On July 21, 2025, the UOKiK President fined Scott Sportech Poland over PLN 4.3 million (approx. EUR 1 million/USD 1.1 million) for restricting online sales of bicycles and accessories. The company distributes the Scott, Bergamont, and Bold cycling brands in Poland.
According to the UOKiK President, Scott Sportech imposed restrictions that effectively banned dealers from selling bikes online and delivering them to customers. Although formal agreements did not explicitly prohibit e-commerce, dealers were required to hand over fully assembled bikes in person and were barred from selling via online platforms. Dealers who breached these rules reportedly faced threats of sanctions, and some dealers reported non-compliant dealers to Scott Sportech, reinforcing market sharing. According to the authority, the questioned practices may have led to limited consumer choice, higher prices, and hindered cross-border sales within the EU. The decision is not yet final.
3. Cement industry under antitrust scrutiny again as the UOKiK President investigates a potential cartel.
The UOKiK President launched an investigation into six cement manufacturers for suspected price-fixing and market allocation. Dawn raids were carried out with judicial approval and police assistance.
The inquiry was triggered by indications that the companies may have revived a previously sanctioned cartel that was dismantled in 2009 and ended with record-breaking fines being imposed on the entities involved. This time, the suspected practices involve coordinating price increases and allocating customers, potentially leading to higher cement prices and harming the construction sector and the economy at large.
The companies whose premises were searched include Holcim Polska, Cemex Polska, Dyckerhoff Polska, Cement Ożarów, Górażdże Cement, and Górażdże Beton. The investigation is currently at the preliminary stage and so far is targeting the alleged conduct rather than specific undertakings. If sufficient evidence is collected, formal antitrust proceedings may follow.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA launches investigation against Federconsorzio Dolomiti SuperSki for alleged anti-competitive agreement.
On July 9, 2025, ICA opened an investigation into the Federconsorzio Dolomiti SuperSki (Federation) and its 12 affiliated local consortia, which include about 150 companies managing ski-lift facilities in northern Italy. The investigation concerns a suspected anticompetitive agreement aimed at setting the prices of regional ski passes and defining their related sales policy.
According to ICA, the local consortia may have been engaged in practices that restrict competition, in violation of Article 2 of Law 287/1990 and Article 101 of the TFEU. ICA’s concerns focus on two key competitive restrictions. First, the Federation allegedly influenced the setting of ski pass prices across the member consortia. Second, the consortia were allegedly subject to restrictions on selling their ski passes through third-party entities, limiting their ability to negotiate independently. The investigation was initiated following a report from SportIt S.r.l., a company offering an online platform for selling winter sports services, including ski passes, which was denied authorization to sell the passes. ICA views the refusal to allow third-party platforms to sell these ski passes, especially online, as potentially anti-competitive, restricting others’ ability to operate in the market.
ICA’s officials, supported by the Antitrust Special Unit of the Financial Police, carried out inspections at the headquarters of the Federation and the 12 local consortia involved in the investigation. The parties have a 60-day period to submit their observations, and the investigation is set to conclude by April 30, 2027.
2. Unfair commercial practice: investigation launched against Revolut Group.
On July 10, 2025, ICA launched investigation against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd, Revolut Bank UAB, and Revolut Securities Europe UAB (collectively, Revolut). The inquiry focuses on the alleged dissemination of misleading messages regarding investment services the company offers, as well as aggressive practices in managing banking services.
Regarding investment services, Revolut allegedly promoted the possibility of investing in stocks while highlighting the absence of commissions, without clarifying the presence of additional costs or the limitations of commission-free investments. Furthermore, the company reportedly failed to disclose that “zero-commission” investments included fractional shares, which differ from whole shares in terms of voting rights and transferability.
In terms of banking services, Revolut is accused of either omitting or providing unclear information about conditions and procedures for suspending, limiting, and blocking accounts. The company allegedly adopted aggressive methods in suspending or blocking accounts without proper notice or providing customers with adequate support or the opportunity for a fair resolution. This would have prevented users from accessing their funds and related services, obstructing them from exercising their contractual rights.
Finally, Revolut allegedly failed to provide clear and comprehensive information regarding the requirements for obtaining an Italian IBAN (starting with IT) instead of the Lithuanian IBAN (starting with LT).
On July 8, ICA’s officials, supported by the Antitrust Special Unit of the Financial Police, conducted inspections at Revolut Bank’s Italian branch.
3. Unfair commercial practice: talks now underway with the European Commission regarding high airfare prices.
On July 3, 2025, ICA announced that discussions with the European Commission have begun about necessary actions to enhance fare comparability and improve competition in the airfare market. The ongoing market investigation into pricing algorithms in passenger air transport, particularly on routes to and from Sicily and Sardinia, is garnering increased attention as regulators push for greater transparency. Following the release of its preliminary report, ICA has engaged in discussions with the European Commission to explore initiatives that may improve the comparability of airfares and boost competition within the sector.
The investigation aims to address concerns about the clarity and comparability of airline ticket prices and ancillary services. These concerns were amplified by feedback from airlines and stakeholders in response to the preliminary report, which highlighted ongoing issues with how flight prices are displayed to consumers. One of the investigation’s main findings is that the lack of comparability in pricing algorithms makes it difficult for passengers to compare flight tickets accurately. This lack of clarity also affects the visibility of ancillary services - such as seat selection, baggage allowances, and other add-ons - leading to confusion over the actual cost of a flight. As a result, passengers may struggle to make informed purchasing decisions, limiting their ability to identify the best deals.
The significance of these concerns is underscored by the fact that nearly half of all air passengers purchase additional services, contributing to airline revenues. Given the importance of these services in the overall pricing structure, ICA is calling for effective measures to enhance price transparency, particularly in the way these ancillary charges are presented to consumers.
European Union
A. European Commission
1. The European Commission fines Alchem for participating in pharmaceutical cartel.
The European Commission has imposed a fine of €489,000 on pharmaceutical company Alchem International for participating in a cartel involving the active pharmaceutical ingredient N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (SNBB), an essential component for abdominal antispasmodic medication such as Buscopan. Alchem was found to have coordinated price fixing, used quota allocation, and exchanged sensitive commercial information with other participants across the European Economic Area (EEA) from 2005 to 2018.
Unlike other cartel members fined in a 2023 settlement decision, Alchem chose not to cooperate and was fined separately, following standard procedure. This marks the first time the European Commission has sanctioned a cartel in the pharmaceutical sector related to an active pharmaceutical ingredient. The European Commission collaborated closely with Swiss and Australian competition authorities during the investigation.
2. The European Commission seeks stakeholder feedback for revising EU antitrust enforcement framework.
On July 10, 2025, the European Commission launched a public consultation and call for evidence on the future of EU procedures for enforcing competition rules, aiming to modernize Regulations 1/2003 and 773/2004. This follows the 2024 evaluation, which concluded that while the current framework remains effective, updates are needed to reflect structural changes in the economy, particularly to the transformative changes of digitalization.
The consultation focuses on improving the efficiency of antitrust enforcement, including investigative powers, interim measures, access to file procedures, and coordination with national competition authorities. Stakeholders can submit feedback until Oct. 2, 2025, which will inform the European Commission’s legislative proposal expected by September 2026.
3. The European Commission opens in-depth investigation into UMG’s proposed acquisition of Downtown.
The European Commission has opened an in-depth (Phase II) investigation into Universal Music Group (UMG)’s proposed acquisition of Downtown, following preliminary concerns that this acquisition may reduce competition in the wholesale market for recorded music distribution and the market for artist and label (A&L) services within the EEA.
UMG, a global leader in music recording and publishing, seeks to acquire Downtown, a company providing A&L services and royalty accounting to independent record labels and artists through platforms such as FUGA and Curve. The European Commission is particularly concerned that UMG might exploit commercially sensitive data obtained from Downtown to strengthen its market position unfairly, harming competition by disadvantaging rival record labels. Originally not meeting EU-level turnover thresholds, Dutch and Austrian authorities referred the case under Article 22(1) of the EUMR. The European Commission now has until Nov. 26, 2025, to complete its detailed assessment.
4. The European Commission sends Statement of Objections to Vivendi for possible breach in Lagardère acquisition.
The European Commission issued a Statement of Objections to Vivendi, alleging that it breached the EUMR during its acquisition of Lagardère. The European Commission’s preliminary view is that Vivendi violated both the notification requirement and the “standstill obligation” by exercising decisive influence over Lagardère prior to obtaining full merger clearance and before fulfilling divestment conditions tied to that clearance.
Specifically, the European Commission identified concerns that Vivendi regularly intervened in significant strategic decisions related to Lagardère’s magazines and newspapers, including influencing editorial decisions, selecting cover stories and making personnel decisions for publications such as Paris Match and Journal du Dimanche. Moreover, Vivendi reportedly influenced the programming schedule and staffing decisions at Lagardère’s radio station Europe 1.
Vivendi now has the opportunity to formally respond to the Commission’s objections. If found in breach, Vivendi faces potential fines up to 10% of its aggregate worldwide turnover, pursuant to Article 14 of the EUMR. The issuance of this Statement of Objections is a formal procedural step but does not determine the final outcome of the investigation, which is still ongoing.
B. European Court Decisions
1. The EU General Court ruled the European Commission wrongly calculated Credit Suisse fine.
The EU General Court ruled that the European Commission wrongly calculated a fine imposed on Credit Suisse and reduced the penalty from €83.2 million to €28.9 million. The Court held that the European Commission had mistakenly used incomplete and less reliable data to determine the value of Credit Suisse’s sales in setting the fine.
In 2021, the European Commission had initially fined Credit Suisse, alongside other banks, a total of €344 million for engaging in a cartel in which traders exchanged sensitive information on foreign exchange deals. Credit Suisse was the only bank that chose not to settle.
2. The EU General Court partially annuls Michelin inspection decision.
The EU General Court partially annulled the European Commission’s decision to order Michelin to submit to an unannounced inspection as part of an investigation into suspected price coordination among leading tire manufacturers. Michelin had challenged the inspection as inadequately justified, but the court found the European Commission had sufficient indications that public statements made during earnings calls might constitute a form of signaling about future pricing strategies. However, the court ruled that the European Commission had not adequately justified its suspicions relating to an earlier period identified in its decision, leading to partial annulment.
This ruling emphasizes the increasing importance of public communications in antitrust enforcement, signaling that statements made in investor calls, press releases, or other public forums may be subject to regulatory scrutiny. This ruling also sheds light for the first time on the extent to which the European Commission proactively monitors markets and searches for evidence of anti-competitive conduct, as well as the data analysis tools the European Commission uses to do so.
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.