In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | Poland | The Netherlands | Italy | Germany | European Union | Japan
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. FTC Chairman commits to pursuing merger challenges exclusively in federal court.
During a Feb. 20, 2026, speech, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson expressed a preference to challenge mergers in federal court at the outset, rather than using the agency’s internal adjudication process, where cases are decided by an administrative law judge, then appealed to the FTC Commissioners, and then appealed to a federal court. Ferguson stated the change would align FTC and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) legal standards and reduce the risk of constitutional challenges to the agency’s internal adjudication process. Ferguson further noted that this approach would increase credibility in the FTC’s enforcement.
2. FTC and DOJ seek public comment on guidance for competitor collaborations.
The FTC and the DOJ launched a joint public inquiry on Feb. 23, 2026, seeking input on the effectiveness of the updated version of the pre-merger notice to the federal agencies — known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) form — which took effect in February 2025 after a unanimous vote that included current Chairman Ferguson. A district court order vacated the new form in February, and in March, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to issue a stay pending appeal. As a result, the agencies are now accepting HSR filings using the same form and instructions that were in place before the new form took effect. They will also continue to accept HSR filings made pursuant to the updated form and instructions, should filers voluntarily submit them.
Through their inquiry, the FTC and the DOJ seek to understand whether the requirements of the updated form effectively fulfill their intended purpose to: (1) enable the agencies to identify potentially anticompetitive mergers more efficiently and (2) allow the agencies to more quickly determine whether a deal would require the issuance of second requests to conduct an in-depth antitrust investigation. As such, the agencies seek to gather feedback from the public on the implementation, effects, and potential areas for further refinement of the new form to ensure the costs to parties do not outweigh the benefit of the information provided to the FTC and the DOJ. Parties may submit comments no later than May 26, 2026.
3. FTC Chairman launches Healthcare Task Force.
On March 20, 2026, FTC Chairman Ferguson directed agency staff to form a Healthcare Task Force to coordinate enforcement and advocacy across the FTC’s Bureaus of Competition, Consumer Protection, and Economics, as well as the Office of Policy Planning and the Office of Technology. The task force will pursue targeted enforcement initiatives, develop coordinated investigation strategies, and identify emerging health care competition and consumer protection issues. The FTC indicated it plans to expand the task force’s membership to include the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice. The formation of the task force follows several recent FTC enforcement actions in the health care sector.
4. White House pushes back on antitrust criticism, cautions against state deviation from federal policy.
On March 26, 2026, Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Ryan Baasch, addressed criticism of the DOJ and the FTC over their handling of several high-profile antitrust matters. Baasch dismissed as “much ado about nothing” the media coverage surrounding the DOJ’s mid-trial settlement of its monopolization lawsuit against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the cleared merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, and the approved Nexstar-Tegna transaction, attributing the criticism to long-established Washington insiders uncomfortable with change and the increased involvement of non-traditional private sector players in engaging with the agencies. Baasch also expressed skepticism toward the more than two dozen state attorneys general who have opted to continue the Live Nation litigation after the DOJ settled, saying the states have largely ridden in the “back seat” during the life of the case and are now acting on “impulse.” Baasch warned more broadly that state deviations from federal government positions in antitrust and other areas of national significance, including AI policy, create meaningful challenges for regulated industries and their counsel.
5. ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting Update: Increased federal preference for settlements and, in response, a surge of state enforcement activity.
The ABA held its annual Antitrust Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., from March 25-27, 2026. The various panels highlighted the FTC and DOJ’s renewed preference for settlements under the Trump administration, and in response, the increase in both ex ante antitrust policy and state enforcement activities.
From a U.S. perspective, panelists emphasized a meaningful shift in enforcement dynamics. Panelists consistently observed a greater federal openness to negotiated outcomes, particularly settlements that carve out discrete overlaps, rely on divestitures, and preserve the remainder of transactions. Patricia Brink, assistant chief of the International Section at the DOJ Antitrust Division, emphasized the differing purposes of merger remedies and conduct remedies, noting that merger remedies focus on preserving competitive intensity between parties before harm materializes, while conduct remedies aim to recreate competition that has already been lost. Jonathan Sallet, special assistant attorney general at the Colorado Office of the Attorney General, pushed back on drawing overly rigid lines between the two, warning that, “if we go down the road of thinking certain kinds of remedies fall into certain buckets, the buckets become, inadvertently, the enemy of effective antitrust.” He argued that enforcement should focus on addressing the full scope of competitive harm, regardless of the formal category into which a case falls. Nathan Blake, deputy attorney general for consumer protection at the Colorado Office of the Attorney General, also expressed his skepticism and said that federal enforcers “are not reliable partners in approaching a merits-based way in every case.”
In contrast to federal enforcers, who seem more willing to engage in settlement, state attorneys general are increasingly filling the gap and emerging as central enforcement actors. As Elizabeth Odette, chair of the antitrust task force of the National Association of Attorneys General noted: “I think sometimes state AGs are an afterthought; maybe not anymore.” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti echoed the shift: “Before you had the [DOJ] as the very big brother, and the states were kind of the little siblings running alongside. Now you are seeing more and more state capacity. So, when there’s an antitrust question, a good lawyer is probably going to make sure they’re covering not just the federal angle, but the state angle.”
Panelists repeatedly said that state attorneys general check the DOJ’s homework, particularly in situations where federal agencies pursue settlements that states view as insufficient. Colorado Deputy Attorney General Nathan Blake warned that companies increasingly risk missteps by treating state attorneys general as peripheral to the merger review process: “I do think we’ve been in multiple situations over the last couple years where it appears on this side of the table that the parties on the other side just treat state AGs as an afterthought to the process. And that is risky.”
States appear more willing to press cases on the merits, intervene to challenge or expand federal settlements, and partner with private counsel to continue litigation where federal enforcers step back. California Senior Assistant Attorney General Paula Blizzard was direct about the implications for companies: “If you’re only talking to the FTC and you get a settlement agreement with them, but you have not told any of the states, I wouldn’t assume they’d settle. I wouldn’t assume they’ll just accept the terms. I wouldn’t assume they’d walk away. I think you should assume they’re going to try that case against you.” Blizzard also made clear that California’s enforcement pace will not slow regardless of caseload: “We’re bringing a lot of independent actions, and I do not think that it’s going to slow down.” Texas Antitrust Division Chief Thomas York echoed this sentiment, noting, “We’re capable of bringing some of the most complex antitrust cases in the world. We don’t need FTC, we don’t need DOJ to bring a case.”
This trend is reinforced by institutional factors, including the migration of experienced litigators to state offices and growing political incentives for attorneys general to take visible antitrust positions. In the past three years, some states have doubled or tripled their antitrust resources, according to Odette. Minnesota, for example, grew from 2.5 antitrust staffers in 2020 to six full-time attorneys as of the date of this newsletter. Texas has approximately 20 antitrust staffers and access to litigators from other divisions. California fields 33 attorneys in its antitrust law section alone, plus an additional 10 in a health care rights and access section with competition responsibilities.
At the same time, the expansion of state-level merger review regimes, including mini HSR notification laws and broader health care transaction oversight, may signal a more durable structural shift toward a dual-track system in which parties must navigate parallel and potentially divergent federal and state scrutiny. Colorado’s Blake described his state’s mini HSR legislation as enabling faster and more efficient review, allowing the state to “get assured on the front end, more quickly and more efficiently, that there’s nothing to worry about here.” Blizzard framed California’s analogous approach as largely beneficial to companies, noting that early, voluntary information sharing reduces the likelihood of state subpoenas and the complications that come with parallel, less-coordinated investigations.
The various panelists also noted the global trend toward ex ante antitrust enforcement — such as the Digital Markets Act in Europe and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act in the UK — and discussed whether the United States will pursue more ex ante antitrust policy in various sectors. For example, some states have already begun to pass legislation specific to the use of algorithmic pricing. In that vein, a Utah enforcer cautioned that fully autonomous tacit collusion among algorithms may fall outside the reach of existing antitrust law. As Matthew Michaloski, an assistant attorney general with the Utah Attorney General’s office, explained, “What’s been described in the literature as fully autonomous tacit collusion ... that’s [going to] be a tricky one to do anything with under existing antitrust law — whether the Sherman Act or state analogs.” By contrast, he noted that competitors who agree to use the same price-aligning algorithms are on much riskier ground: “That’s going to get you a [civil investigative demand] or even worse.”
Panelists also noted that the technology and AI sector may benefit from ex ante enforcement. Sallet, a special assistant attorney general at the Colorado Office of the Attorney General, described the challenge of bringing Big Tech cases as a “Goldilocks” problem: “It has to be just right. It can’t be too early and it can’t be too late.”
New York’s Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Fishman identified personalized pricing as an emerging enforcement priority. He noted that the secrecy surrounding how personalized prices are constructed raises concerns under privacy law, unfairness law, and potentially price gouging statutes. “I think the basic reason is that to a lot of people, personalized pricing just feels unfair,” he said. Because such pricing practices may rely on sensitive consumer data and make it difficult for consumers to comparison shop, regulators view them as ripe for scrutiny. Fishman also referenced the FTC’s precedent-setting settlements with data brokers and the agency’s litigation against Kochava as establishing a foundation for unfairness claims where sensitive data underlies personalized pricing decisions.
The resulting landscape introduces greater complexity and uncertainty for dealmakers, with states playing an increasingly decisive role in whether and how transactions ultimately proceed. As Tennessee’s Skrmetti summarized: “We’re a very polarized country, and Congress obviously has a very hard time doing anything as a result of that… But you see coalitions of states that are extremely different in their ideological balance working together pretty effectively.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield captured the broader dynamic: “There is going to be this realignment and shift of responsibilities that will have to happen over time.”
As Marie Martin, deputy division director for antitrust and data privacy at the Utah Office of the Attorney General summarized, “I think that you’re probably [going to] see a lot more state court action and a lot more single state action going forward.”
Mexico
CNA Sanctions Companies for Establishing Exclusivity Arrangements in the Sale of Medical Oxygen to Medical Facilities.
Mexico’s National Antitrust Commission (CNA) imposed a fine of approximately 800 million pesos on Praxair and two companies belonging to Grupo Infra for including exclusivity clauses in their medical oxygen supply contracts with private sector clinics and hospitals.
Grupo INFRA and Praxair are some of the largest suppliers of medical oxygen to clinics and hospitals. Both included exclusivity clauses in their contracts that prevent clients from turning to other suppliers, increasing barriers to entry for suppliers and increasing costs to clinics and hospitals for medical oxygen. The contracts also provided for automatic renewal and included penalties for early termination. These restrictive conditions applied to all current and future hospitals belonging to their clients. The restrictions were in effect for at least the period from 2010 to 2023, which means they remained in force even during the pandemic.
According to CNA, the conduct directly affected clinics and hospitals in various regions of the country, as well as all patients who required medicinal oxygen as part of their treatment at those facilities. The full Commission imposed a fine of 723 million pesos on Grupo INFRA, as well as a fine of 68 million pesos on Praxair. Likewise, in the markets in which the practice was committed, CNA ordered the companies to:
- Not apply the exclusivity clauses contained in their current contracts, nor to apply penalties for non-compliance with them.
- Not include exclusivity clauses and automatic renewal clauses in future contracts.
- Appoint a compliance officer and an independent auditor to ensure the proper implementation of these corrective measures, and to oversee compliance with competition laws across all operations of the companies.
With this decision, the CNA seeks to guarantee that access to medical oxygen for clinics and hospitals occurs under the best possible conditions, which in turn benefits patients who may need it. The CNA identified the healthcare sector as a priority and, therefore, will maintain permanent oversight of both the competitive conditions and the companies operating within it, in order to ensure its proper functioning for the benefit of patients. Affected companies or individuals may file the corresponding legal actions before the specialized courts with jurisdiction over the matter.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
1. UOKiK investigates whether PSE applied a renewable energy redispatching mechanism in a potentially discriminatory manner.
On March 4, 2026, UOKiK announced that it had initiated explanatory proceedings to assess whether Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne (PSE)’s non‑market-based redispatching mechanism for renewable energy sources constitutes a potential abuse of a dominant position. PSE is the sole operator of Poland’s electricity transmission system and, by operation of law, holds a monopoly position.
PSE’s statutory responsibilities include ensuring the balancing of the electricity system, including using a non‑market-based redispatching mechanism for renewable energy sources, which involves the temporary shutdown or reduction of electricity generation by renewable energy installations in order to balance the system or prevent network congestion. In line with Polish Regulation No. 2019/943,2 the application of this mechanism must be based on objective, transparent, and non-discriminatory criteria and may only be used in exceptional circumstances. In practice, however, it is applied regularly and on a large scale.
The explanatory proceedings were preceded by complaints submitted to UOKiK by renewable energy producers, who alleged that their installations were subject to redispatching measures more frequently than others and without adequate justification. According to the complainants, this practice may have placed them at a competitive disadvantage compared to other market participants. At this stage, no formal allegations have been brought against PSE. UOKiK is therefore examining whether PSE applied shutdown or output‑reduction orders in a proportionate, transparent, and non‑discriminatory manner. Should UOKiK initiate formal antitrust proceedings and bring charges, PSE may face fines of up to 10% of its annual turnover.
2. UOKiK fines installers of solar panels and heat pumps for infringement of consumer protection laws.
On March 23, 2025, UOKiK announced that it had issued two decisions imposing fines totaling approximately PLN 7 million (approximately $1.9 million/€1.6 million) on entities operating in the renewable energy market — specifically installers of solar panels and heat pumps — as well as four members of their management boards. Neither decision is final, and both have been appealed to the court.
a. False advertising regarding solar panels.
UOKiK fined Polska Energia Grupa Kapitałowa for misleading advertising practices involving the distribution of marketing materials designed to resemble official government correspondence, as part of a sales campaign for solar-panel systems. The black-and-white printed notices featured headings such as “Announcement” or “Notice”; were stamped with the wording “Notice for Municipality Residents” in red; and warned consumers of imminent electricity price increases of 300-400%, whereas actual household energy price increases in 2022-2024 were below 33%. According to UOKiK, this conduct artificially created a sense of urgency and fear, thereby pressuring consumers to enter into agreements for the installation of photovoltaic systems.
b. Terms of heat-pump installation contract shield company from litigation.
The fine imposed on Energia dla Pokoleń concerned the use of abusive clauses in standard contracts that could hinder consumers’ ability to assert their rights. These included clauses governing deadlines for the completion of installation works: in particular, vague references to “adverse weather conditions” that effectively shielded Energia dla Pokoleń from liability for installation delays. The contract templates also included disclaimers stating that Energia dla Pokoleń did not guarantee specific levels of energy production or savings, even where concrete figures had been presented during the sales process. From a consumer perspective, this created a risk that representations framed as firm commitments at the sales stage could later be treated as non-binding.
The Netherlands
A. Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
1.ACM launches investigation following Sandd ruling.
On Feb. 13, 2026, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) announced that it opened an investigation into PostNL following the recent judgment of the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) concerning PostNL’s acquisition of Sandd. In its December 2025 ruling, the CBb confirmed the ACM’s refusal of the transaction, bringing an end to years of proceedings.
Nevertheless, the PostNL-Sandd merger has been a reality since 2019/2020. At the time, PostNL had received approval from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs to proceed with the merger (overriding the ACM). Although that approval decision was later overturned, the situation was not illegal at the time of the merger. In the weeks following the CBb judgment, the ACM engaged with various stakeholders to explore potential solutions addressing the impact of the acquisition, but those discussions did not result in a satisfactory outcome, and the ACM has now decided to proceed with a formal investigation.
The ACM has not indicated a timeline for the investigation. Should it conclude that competition rules have been infringed, it may impose remedies aimed at restoring effective competition in the postal services market. At the same time, the ACM remains open to discussions with PostNL and other stakeholders regarding possible measures to address the identified concerns.
2. ACM investigates suspected no-poach agreements in IT sector.
On Feb. 3, 2026, the ACM announced that it had launched an investigation into an IT company relating to potential anti-competitive arrangements concerning employees. The authority suspects that the company may have entered into agreements with other firms not to actively approach or hire each other’s staff. According to the ACM, such arrangements can restrict employee mobility, resulting in lower wages and less-favorable working conditions. The authority emphasized that competition for talent is an essential aspect of well-functioning markets and that restrictions on employee movement may have broader negative effects on innovation, efficiency, and opportunities for smaller firms.
The investigation follows an on-site inspection and requests for information. The ACM will now assess whether competition rules have been infringed. If it finds that this is the case, the company will be given the opportunity to respond before any potential sanctions are imposed.
B. Dutch Courts
1. CBb requests clarification from CJEU on vertical price restrictions in Samsung case.
The CBb has submitted preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the interpretation of restrictions in the context of resale price maintenance. The referral arises from ongoing proceedings between Samsung Electronics Benelux and the ACM regarding a fine imposed for fixing online resale prices. The CBb indicated that Samsung’s conduct went beyond mere non-binding recommendations and effectively limited retailers’ ability to determine their own resale prices. At the same time, the CBb considered that certain legal questions require clarification at EU level. In particular, the CBb has asked the CJEU to provide guidance on the evidentiary standard and scope of assessment required for national authorities to establish an infringement of competition rules in such cases.
2. Dutch court requires further evidence in Booking.com damages claims.
On March 4, 2026, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled that hotels seeking damages from Booking.com must provide further evidence to substantiate their claims. The case concerns so-called parity clauses, which prevented hotels from offering lower prices on other sales channels. While earlier rulings, including from the CJEU, have found that such clauses may infringe competition law, the Dutch court emphasized that this does not automatically establish that hotels suffered harm. To assess this, the Dutch court intends to appoint an expert to examine Booking.com’s market position at the relevant time.
Italy
A. Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA fines Morellato €25.9 million for anticompetitive vertical agreement.
On March 17, 2026, the ICA fined Morellato S.p.A. €25.9 million for engaging in a restrictive vertical agreement within its selective distribution system for mid-range jewelry and watches, implemented between July 20, 2018, and Dec. 23, 2025. According to ICA, Morellato imposed resale price constraints by effectively fixing maximum discount levels that authorized retailers could apply, particularly on online sales channels, through detailed recommendations on permissible discount percentages. Morellato then confirmed compliance through systematic price monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, including warnings, requests to withdraw discounts, suspension of orders, and threats of contract termination.
ICA also found that Morellato contractually prohibited authorized distributors from selling via third-party online platforms and marketplaces, despite Morellato itself operating on such platforms. ICA concluded that these practices amounted to a vertical agreement in breach of Article 101 TFEU, as they combined resale price maintenance with restrictions on online sales channels, thereby reducing competition among authorized retailers and limiting their commercial autonomy.
2. ICA opens investigation on abuse of dominant position in the national market for meal voucher services.
On March 17, 2026, the ICA opened proceedings against Edenred Italia S.r.l. and its parent company Edenred SE for an alleged abuse of dominant position in the national market for meal voucher services, in breach of Article 102 TFEU. According to ICA, following the introduction of a regulatory cap on commissions charged to affiliated merchants for the reimbursement of meal vouchers, Edenred implemented a strategy aimed at shifting unjustified costs onto large-scale retail operators. In particular, the company reorganized the acceptance process for electronic meal vouchers by removing direct integration between retailers’ checkout systems and its authorization platforms, instead requiring the use of indirect interconnection systems provided by third-party providers, thereby increasing operational complexity and costs for retailers.
ICA also noted the imposition of additional burdensome conditions, including extended reimbursement timelines for meal vouchers. Such practices may have led to higher costs for large retailers, with potential downstream effects on consumer prices and the proper functioning of the market. As part of the investigation, the ICA, with the support of the Special Antitrust Unit of the Italian Financial Police, carried out dawn raids on the premises of Edenred Italia as well as at the offices of other major meal voucher issuers and certain service providers deemed to hold relevant information.
3. ICA updates the national merger control turnover thresholds.
On March 10, 2026, ICA updated the turnover thresholds for merger notification pursuant to Article 16(1) of Law No. 287/1990. The aggregate turnover threshold was increased to €595 million (from €582 million in 2025), while the individual turnover threshold was raised to €36 million (from €35 million). These adjustments reflect ICA’s annual indexation mechanism and determine the applicability of mandatory merger control notification requirements in Italy.
Germany
A. Federal Cartel Office
1. Federal Cartel Office discontinues cartel prohibition proceedings concerning Telekom/EWE fiberoptic joint venture Glasfaser Nordwest.
On March 26, 2026, the Federal Cartel Office discontinued proceedings (V-37/25) concerning the cooperation between Telekom Deutschland GmbH and EWE Aktiengesellschaft within their joint venture Glasfaser Nordwest GmbH & Co. KG (GFNW), accepting new binding commitments under Sec. 32b GWB. GFNW was established in 2020 to build and operate fiberoptic networks in northwestern Germany, offering wholesale access to its infrastructure to its parent companies and third-party providers.
The Federal Cartel Office found that the competitive situation had materially changed since the GFNW was originally approved in 2019. Rollout in the cooperation area has exceeded the original targets and stands above the national average, with approximately 90% coverage expected by the end of 2026. The Federal Network Agency’s imposition of comprehensive regulatory obligations on GFNW in July 2024, including a strict equivalence-of-input requirement, resolved much of the residual concern. The new commitments, valid until Dec. 31, 2030, extend the existing shortlist mechanism — which prevents GFNW from preempting competitors’ rollout plans on short notice — and continue the non-discrimination and good-faith negotiation obligations, subject to the primacy of sector regulation. The proceedings are discontinued on a time-limited basis; upon expiration, the Federal Cartel Office will have full power to examine the cooperation, though it expects the rollout in the cooperation area to be largely complete by then.
2. Federal Cartel Office clears Adobe’s acquisition of Semrush in Phase I.
On March 20, 2026, the Federal Cartel Office cleared Adobe Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Semrush Holdings, Inc. in the first phase of merger control proceedings involving the two U.S.-based companies. The transaction was notifiable under the transaction value threshold, which applies where a target generating little or no turnover in Germany is acquired at a purchase price exceeding €400 million.
Adobe is a global technology company active in creativity and productivity software — including Photoshop and PDF applications — as well as marketing and commerce software, notably Adobe Experience Manager, a content management platform for creating and managing online text, images and video. Semrush offers software solutions for managing online visibility, including search engine optimization tools, and has recently launched a product for optimizing brand presence across generative AI models and related chatbots, a field referred to as answer engine optimization.
The Federal Cartel Office conducted extensive investigations among customers and competitors given that the parties are each among the leading providers in their respective fields and the transaction raised potential concerns — in particular in the rapidly evolving area of answer engine optimization and in content management — including the risk of market foreclosure through product bundling. The investigations did not reveal concerns warranting further examination. The Federal Cartel Office found that sufficient alternatives remain available and that no risk of market foreclosure arises, including from bundling of the parties’ products. The transaction was accordingly cleared without conditions.
European Union
A. European Commission
1. EU unveils Industrial Accelerator Act targeting strategic investments.
On March 19, 2026, the European Commission introduced a proposal for an Industrial Accelerator Act designed to reinforce the EU’s industrial base, support the transition to decarbonization, and reduce reliance on external supply chains in key sectors. The proposal places particular emphasis on foreign direct investment in strategically important industries, such as clean technologies and critical raw materials. Large-scale investments meeting certain thresholds may become subject to stricter scrutiny, including prior notification and approval requirements. Under the proposed framework, authorities would be able to assess whether such investments contribute to the EU’s economic resilience and technological capacity. Approval may be linked to specific conditions, like ownership structures, investment in research and development within the EU, workforce composition, and the handling of intellectual property. The proposal seeks to address vulnerabilities arising from global competition, strategic dependencies, and the potential loss of critical technologies and industrial know-how. If adopted, the new rules might increase regulatory oversight of cross-border investments and may affect how companies structure transactions within the EU.
B. European Decisions
1. CJEU upholds majority of fines in long-running air cargo cartel case.
In February 2026, the CJEU dismissed the majority of appeals brought by airlines against fines imposed for their involvement in a global air cargo cartel, largely confirming the European Commission’s earlier infringement decision. Only Scandinavian airline SAS obtained a limited fine reduction due to a calculation error. The ruling effectively ends more than a decade of litigation at EU level.
The case concerns coordination between several international carriers on key pricing elements, including fuel and security surcharges, in the air freight sector between 1999 and 2006. In its original 2010 decision, the European Commission imposed fines totaling approximately €800 million on multiple airlines. Following a series of annulments, readoptions, and further appeals, the Commission set the total fines at approximately €776 million.
A central issue in the proceedings was whether the European Commission had jurisdiction over conduct relating to air freight services between non-EU countries and the EU. The CJEU confirmed that EU competition law may apply where conduct, even if implemented outside the EU, is capable of producing foreseeable, immediate, and substantial effects within the internal market. The CJEU also upheld the classification of the conduct as a single and continuous infringement, clarifying that companies may be held liable for participation in a cartel even where their involvement was not uninterrupted or covered all aspects of the conduct.
Japan
1. Overall Enforcement Trends: Assertive Stance from the Outset
Since the Act on the Optimization of Transactions involving Specified Entrusted Business Operators (the Toriteki-ho) came into force in January 2026, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has adopted a proactive enforcement posture. Within a relatively short period, the JFTC has issued multiple recommendations and requests, implying a strict approach during the initial implementation phase.
Recent enforcement has been conducted on two sectors:
- Automotive — dealers, parts suppliers, and body repair operators; and
- Manufacturing — particularly mold and tooling management.
Across these cases, the principal violation has been the “unjust request for economic benefits,” which may remain an important compliance risk under the amended framework.
2. Industry-Level Enforcement: Systemic Scrutiny of Automotive Dealers
The JFTC has begun addressing not only individual violations but also structural issues within entire industries. For example, the JFTC issued a formal request to the Japan Automobile Dealers Association addressing repeated instances of dealers failing to compensate subcontractors for transportation services. The JFTC has instructed the Association to disseminate violation cases and reinforce compliance measures across all member companies; the JFTC and the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency have indicated that they will continue to jointly monitor transactions between dealers and repair shops, underscoring that sector‑wide compliance is now a regulatory priority.
3. Company-Level Cases: Clarifying Enforcement Patterns
The JFTC has issued recent recommendations which illustrate specific conduct that is attracting increased attention:
- A company required long-term free storage of 4,311 molds and jigs across 43 suppliers, resulting in approximately JPY 80.7 million in compensation. This confirms that mold management remains a recurring high-risk area for manufacturers.
- A company failed to compensate subcontractors for the transportation of 2,808 vehicles and parts involving 25 suppliers. The case reinforces that “free” logistics services constitute a typical and actionable violation in the automotive sector.
- Three subsidiaries received recommendations for long-term free mold storage. Notably, one subsidiary was cited for a single mold (JPY 77,000), demonstrating that the JFTC may pursue violations regardless of scale and expects consistent internal controls across all subsidiaries.
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.
2 Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity.