In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | Poland | Italy | The Netherlands | European Union | Germany
United States
A. U.S. Litigation
1. Amgen v. Mizner, Case No. 1:25-CV-03452 (D. Colo. July 1, 2026).
On July 1, 2026, the Honorable Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order temporarily blocking enforcement of the State of Colorado’s price cap on arthritis medication. Amgen, Inc., the manufacturer of the arthritis drug Enbrel, brought the lawsuit, alleging that the price cap violated federal protections for patented medications. Though Judge Domenico acknowledged that Colorado had legitimate interests in protecting patients from high drug prices, he nevertheless held that the law violated the “bargain struck by Congress” in allowing holders of drug patents to charge supracompetitive prices for their medications, so long as the patents are enforceable.
2. AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Express Scripts, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02268 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2026)
On June 30, 2026, AIDS Healthcare Foundation — operator of multiple nonprofit wellness centers — alleged that it would no longer be able to operate if Express Scripts, Inc. continued directing pharmacy patients to Express’s affiliated pharmacy specialists. According to the complaint, Express Scripts is the pharmacy-benefit manager for Cigna, and its policies reimburse its affiliates at a higher rate for the same medication than they do for other pharmaceutical providers, allowing those affiliates to charge patients less. Given Express’s market power, AIDS Healthcare alleges, the result is that independent pharmacies — including those who use paying patients to supplement the cost of providing free medications — will be pushed out of the marketplace, harming competition and patients.
3. Mosaic Health Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis US LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-06507 (W.D.N.Y. June 26, 2026).
On June 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Colleen D. Holland recommended that many of the class-action claims brought against makers of insulin be dismissed, leaving only a subset of state-law antitrust claims. In this case, the plaintiffs allege that a group of manufacturers conspired to raise insulin prices by denying discounts under a federal 340B Drug Pricing Program for low-income patients. The case has already included one appeal, in which the Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs’ “overcharge” claim was permissible under state antitrust laws, even though direct 340B claims must be brought in an administrative proceeding. On remand, Judge Holland recommended dismissing the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims, as well as all claims brought under the laws of Mississippi, Utah, New York, and Virginia.
4. Owoc Monster Energy Co., 25-1264 (U.S. June 22, 2024).
On June 22, 2026, the United States Supreme Court denied review of Monster Energy Co.’s $272 million verdict against its competitor, Vital Pharmaceuticals and Jack Owoc, Vital’s founder. In the underlying lawsuit, Monster Energy sued Vital, alleging that it labeled its Bang Energy drink as containing “super creatine,” which misled customers to think Vital’s drink contained creatine, the popular exercise supplement. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Vital’s and Owoc’s attempt to admit Monster Energy’s internal consumer survey evidence downplaying the materiality of Vital’s “super creatine” labeling. This was the primary issue in defendants’ petition to the Supreme Court, which denied the appeal without briefing from Monster Energy.
B. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division
1. DOJ continues to focus on the agricultural sector by securing commitments from seed developer over its loyalty program.
On May 20, 2026, the Antitrust Division announced that Bayer CropScience LLC agreed to modify its loyalty program in response to an ongoing investigation into conduct in the corn and soybean seed markets. The Division raised concerns that certain provisions — such as tying corn and soybean seed sales targets to unlock discounts and offering incentives that discouraged licensing from competitors — could harm competition. To address these issues, Bayer removed the challenged provisions and committed not to reinstate them, or similar restrictions, for seven years. The Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division, Omeed Assefi, emphasized that “enforcement in agriculture is a top priority for the Antitrust Division.”
2. Paramount-Warner Bros. merger clears DOJ review.
On June 12, 2026, the DOJ announced that it completed its investigation into the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros., determining that the transaction is not likely to harm competition or consumers. The DOJ concluded that the merger would not adversely affect competition in streaming video, linear television, or theatrical film production and distribution, and may instead increase competition by strengthening the parties’ ability to compete in the media and entertainment industry. Regarding linear television, the DOJ noted the decreasing demand for the product and aggressive competition for live programming, the only area of concern in this product market. Finally, with respect to studio developments and theatrical releases, the DOJ highlighted various legacy and non-legacy studios which continue to vigorously compete, even after the announcement of this merger. The DOJ’s investigation found that the merger would also not raise monopsony concerns and harm the competition for labor.
3. DOJ secures settlement with OhioHealth over exclusive contracting practices.
On June 16, 2026, the Antitrust Division announced a proposed settlement resolving its civil antitrust lawsuit against OhioHealth Corporation, alleging that the company used contract terms with commercial health insurers that limited the availability of lower-cost health insurance options. The DOJ alleged that OhioHealth required insurers to include the company in all networks and imposed restrictions that deterred innovative or budget-conscious plan designs, resulting in fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. To address these concerns, the proposed consent judgment would void existing restrictive provisions, prohibit OhioHealth from imposing similar terms in the future, and bar the hospital system from penalizing insurers from offering “innovative” plans. The settlement would also require compliance monitoring and reporting for five years.
Read the full GT Alert on this settlement.
Mexico
National Antitrust Commission (CNA)
1. CNA resolves bid-rigging case involving medical supplies and reinforces regulatory focus on public procurement in the health sector.
On June 16, 2026, CNA announced that it imposed sanctions totaling MXN 59.6 million on four companies and six individuals for their participation in bid rigging in public tenders for X-ray materials. According to the information released by the CNA, the sanctioned conduct involved the exchange of sensitive information and the coordination of bids in public procurement proceedings between October 2010 and December 2016. The CNA stated that the sanctions imposed are part of its strategic priority to monitor markets for important inputs, particularly those related to the health sector.
2. CNA sanctions alleged collusion among companies in the real estate sector.
On June 10, 2026, the National Antitrust Commission (CNA) reported that it imposed sanctions exceeding MXN 500 million on various real estate companies, including Grupo Danhos, GICSA, Liverpool, Acosta Verde, Chedraui, DMI, and ARYBA, as well as on the Association of Real Estate Developers (ADI) and several individuals, for the alleged execution of illegal agreements to manipulate commercial lease prices.
According to the CNA, the sanctioned companies allegedly coordinated discount terms offered to shopping center tenants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authority estimated that this caused damages of approximately MXN 404 million.* The sanctioned economic agents may file the corresponding legal remedies before the specialized courts.
* The public version of the resolutions issued by the Plenary of the National Antitrust Commission will be published on the Resolutions and Opinions Portal, pursuant to Articles 47, 48, and 49 of the Regulatory Provisions of the Federal Economic Competition Law.
3. The National Antimonopoly Commission initiated proceedings to assess barriers to competition in the market for public freight rail transport services.
The Investigative Authority (IA) of the CNA concluded its investigation into alleged barriers to competition in various relevant markets of the public rail freight transport service within national territory.
Following the publication of the preliminary opinion, interested economic agents may submit arguments, evidence, and statements. At that point, the Plenary of Commissioners will analyze all the evidence in order to issue a final resolution aimed at ensuring better conditions of competition in said market. The Commission will issue a statement regarding this procedure once all phases of due process have concluded and the Plenary’s final decision has been issued.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
1. UOKiK fines electronics retailer for misleading online shoppers about product availability and delivery.
On May 20, 2026, UOKiK fined Neonet, a seller of electronics and home appliances, PLN 3.043 million (approx. $850,000) in cases related to products offered through the leading Polish e-commerce marketplace, Allegro.
According to UOKiK, some customers were provided with inaccurate information regarding product availability and expected delivery dates and were not properly informed when their orders could not be fulfilled. UOKiK emphasized information is a key factor influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions, particularly on online marketplaces where offers are compared based on stock availability and expected delivery dates.
In addition to the fines, UOKiK ordered Neonet to implement corrective measures, including the publishing notices on its website and social media channels informing consumers about the infringement. The decision is not yet final.
2. UOKiK raids Dino Polska and transport companies over suspected labor market no-poach arrangement.
On June 2, 2026, UOKiK opened antitrust proceedings against Dino Polska and four transport companies cooperating with Dino’s distribution centers — Euro Finannce, Jar-Trans, Martrans Logistics, and Mati-Trans — due to a suspected no-poach arrangement. UOKiK also brought allegations against five managers from the companies involved.
According to UOKiK, the transport companies may have agreed not to hire truck drivers employed by another company participating in alleged infringement for three months after they left their previous employer. Dino Polska is suspected of coordinating the arrangements, including by monitoring drivers’ access to its distribution centers and approving exceptions.
If the allegations are confirmed, the companies may face fines of up to 10% of their annual turnover. The managers involved may be fined up to PLN 2 million.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
ICA and IVASS launch market investigation into competition issues in motor liability insurance.
On June 9, 2026, the ICA together with the Italian Insurance Authority (IVASS), launched a market investigation into potential anticompetitive conducts in the motor liability insurance sector. The investigation will examine the mechanisms used to assess and allocate risk, including bonus-malus systems, merit classes, and company-specific internal merit classes. It will also look into functioning of the direct compensation procedure, including the lump-sum compensation mechanism between insurance companies.
Further, the investigation will assess whether devices used to monitor vehicle activity may create barriers to customer switching. It will consider whether the complexity of commercial offers and discounting practices may reduce the effectiveness of price comparison tools, thereby limiting consumers’ ability to identify the most convenient offers and reducing competitive pressure among insurers.
ICA opened a public consultation inviting interested parties to submit comments by July 31, 2026; it is scheduled to close by Dec. 31, 2027.
The Netherlands
Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
1. ACM prohibits acquisition of Delta fiber networks by KPN-joint venture.
On June 8, 2026, the ACM prohibited the acquisition of part of the fiber-optic networks of Delta Fiber Nederland (Delta), covering approximately 200,000 households across several Dutch municipalities, by Glaspoort B.V., a joint venture of KPN and APG.
The ACM concluded that the acquisition would reduce the number of competing fixed telecom networks in the affected areas from three to two, leaving KPN and VodafoneZiggo as the only network operators. The ACM noted that telecom providers that do not own their fixed infrastructure (e.g. Odido and Budget) would become entirely dependent on KPN for network access, as VodafoneZiggo does not provide open network access to third parties. The ACM also stated that partial elimination of Delta as an independent network owner would reduce competition at the national level by reinforcing KPN’s existing dominance in Dutch fiber infrastructure.
The ACM examined proposed remedies from KPN and Glaspoort but concluded that none adequately addressed the identified concerns.
2. ACM imposes cartel fines for distortion of civil-engineering tender procedure.
On June 2, 2026, the ACM imposed fines on Bouwhuis, Timmerhuis, and Van Gelder for distorting a municipal tender in the civil engineering sector. The companies involved coordinated their bid prices and pre-agreed which company would win the tender.
The ACM calculated its fines on the basis of the contract value of €153,250 (approx. $175,917). All three contractors participated in an expedited settlement procedure and admitted the infringement, resulting in a reduction of their respective fines. Timmerhuis, the eventual winner of the contract, received a fine of €30,000 (approx. $34,300), while Bouwhuis was fined €15,500 (approx. $17,700). Van Gelder was granted full immunity from fines, having been the first to report the arrangements under the leniency program.
3. Rotterdam District Court annuls ACM’s enforcement order against Lactalis
On May 29, 2026, the Rotterdam District Court annulled three ACM decisions related to its enforcement action against Royal Lactalis Leerdammer B.V. (Lactalis). The ACM had imposed an order on Lactalis subject to a penalty following a complaint by a farmers’ collective representing milk suppliers (LVLC). The ACM’s position was that Lactalis violated the prohibition on unilateral modification of purchase price conditions by unilaterally determining its monthly milk purchase price without a transparently and objectively agreed pricing mechanism.
The Rotterdam District Court held that Lactalis’ practice does not constitute a “unilateral modification,” because the supply agreements between Lactalis and its suppliers are not amended by that practice. Absent an infringement, the ACM lacked the authority to impose the penalty order. Consequently, the associated non-enforcement decision on LVLC’s request to collect accrued penalties also lapsed.
The ACM may appeal the judgment within six weeks.
European Union
European Commission (EC)
1. European Commission opens formal antitrust investigation into Sanofi’s flu vaccine disparagement campaign.
On June 26, 2026, the EC opened a formal antitrust investigation into whether Sanofi abused its dominant position by conducting a misleading communication campaign targeting healthcare professionals in France and Germany. The campaign concerns Sanofi’s enhanced flu vaccine, Efluelda, and its competitor, CSL Seqirus’s Fluad. Both vaccines are specifically designed to provide enhanced protection against influenza for patients over 60. The EC’s preliminary view is that Sanofi suggests that Fluad is supported by weaker evidentiary foundations than Efluelda, contradicting the findings of the European Centre for Disease Control and the recommendations of national immunization technical advisory groups in Germany and France.
The investigation follows unannounced raids on Sanofi offices carried out in September 2025. The opening of formal proceedings does not prejudge the outcome of the case.
2. EC clears Holcim's acquisition of Xella subject to divestment of Romanian AAC plant
On June 12, 2026, the EC approved, under the EU Merger Regulation, the proposed acquisition of Xella International S.A., a German manufacturer of walling systems, by Holcim Ltd, subject to a divestment commitment. Holcim is the world’s second-largest cement maker.
The EC identified competition concerns in the market for the supply of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) blocks in Romania, where both Holcim and Xella hold strong market positions with well-established brands. AAC blocks are lightweight building materials designed to provide energy-efficient and sustainable construction solutions. To address those concerns, Holcim committed to divest its AAC blocks plant in Adjud, Romania. Following a positive market test, the EC concluded that the divestment fully removes the identified horizontal overlap and cleared the transaction at Phase I, subject to compliance with that commitment.
3. EC opens Phase II investigation into JD.com’s acquisition of CECONOMY under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR).
On May 28, 2026, the EC opened an in-depth investigation under the FSR (Regulation (EU) 2022/2560), a regime that has applied since July 13, 2023, into JD.com’s proposed acquisition of CECONOMY. The European Commission was notified of the transaction on April 17, 2026, and the Commission is expected to reach a decision by Oct. 2, 2026.
The EC has preliminary concerns that JD.com may have received foreign subsidies capable of distorting competition in the EU internal market. JD.com belongs to a Chinese group that operates a large retail and e-commerce marketplace and provides logistics and technology solutions. CECONOMY is a German consumer electronics retailer that operates online and brick-and-mortar retail businesses across several EU Member States under MediaMarkt, MediaWorld, and Saturn brands.
The opening of the investigation does not prejudge the outcome. The case represents the type of transaction that the EC’s FSR Guidelines of January 2026 specifically flagged as warranting close scrutiny.
Germany
Twelfth Amendment to the Competition Act (GWB) – Draft Bill
Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy published a draft bill for the 12th GWB Amendment on June, 5 2026. The draft has not yet gone through the full legislative process, and individual provisions may still change before enactment.
If enacted, the bill would bring forth:
- Simultaneous increases to all three merger control turnover thresholds (global combined: €500m to €750m; domestic: €50m to €75m and €17.5m to €20m);
- Expansion of the transaction value threshold (€400m) to cover targets with no current German activity but probable future activity within a two-year forecasting horizon;
- A new mandatory pre-notification procedure for transaction-value cases;
- A new procurement screening mechanism allowing the Federal Cartel Office (de. Bundeskartellamt) to analyze bidder data without prior suspicion;
- Extension of formal clearance decisions to vertical cooperation agreements;
- A five-year extension of energy sector abuse control to 2032;
- Expanded Fuel Market Transparency Unit powers;
- Abolition of the leave-to-appeal requirement for antitrust matters;
- Mandatory prompt publication of Federal Cartel Office decisions;
- Increased fee ceilings; and
- A fixed eight-year term for the Federal Cartel Office President.
The bill will undergo cabinet approval, the Federal Council’s (de. Bundesrat) opinion, and Federal Parliament (de. Bundestag) deliberation, including committee review. Further amendments are possible at each stage. No enactment date has been set.
Read previous editions of GT’s Competition Currents Newsletter.
Subscribe to GT Antitrust & Competition Practice 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.