In This Issue1
United States | Mexico | Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Commissioner Holyoak suggests FTC will coordinate with international agencies only with respect to U.S. antitrust law violations.
Speaking at the Consumer Technology Association event in Washington, D.C., Commissioner Holyoak emphasized that the FTC remains focused on its core mandate: protecting consumers from anticompetitive conduct and unfair business practices under U.S. antitrust law. She noted that any international cooperation will be pursued only insofar as it advances these objectives, implying the FTC would not assist foreign enforcers with claims under their laws, which might be broader than U.S. antitrust law and policy.
B. U.S. State and Local Legislative Updates
New state laws regulating algorithmic pricing in New York and California.
This October, California and New York passed laws to regulate the use of algorithmic pricing. While California’s statute addresses algorithmic pricing broadly, New York’s law is limited to residential rental units.
California: Amendments to the Cartwright Act will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026. The statutes, codified in Sections 16729 and 16756.1 of the California Business and Professions Code, make it unlawful to: (1) “use or distribute a common pricing algorithm” as part of a contract, trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade; or (2) to “coerce[] another person” to set or adopt a price or commercial term recommended by a “common pricing algorithm.” The statue defines “common pricing algorithm” to mean “any methodology, including a computer, software, or other technology, used by two or more persons, that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set, or otherwise influence a price or commercial term.” “Commercial term” is defined to include the level of service, availability, and output, and “price” is defined as the amount of money “or other thing of value” given in payment, including compensation paid to employees or independent contractors.
New York: General Business Law Section 340-B became effective on Nov. 1, 2026. This statute makes it unlawful to: (1) facilitate an agreement among two or more landlords to not compete with respect to residential rental units, including through use of software, data analytics service, or algorithmic device performing a coordinating function; and (2) for landlords to set or adjust lease terms such as rental prices, lease renewal terms, and occupancy levels based on recommendations from a software, data analytics service, or algorithmic device performing a coordinating function.
The statue defines “algorithmic device” as “any machine, device, computer program, or computer software that on its own or with human assistance performs a coordinating function.” However, the statue only prohibits “coordinating function[s]” that involve collecting, analyzing, and recommending information regarding residential rental lease terms through or at the recommendation of a software, data analytics service, or algorithmic device. The statute makes it unlawful for entities to aggregate such data from two or more landlords, and for landlords to knowingly or with reckless disregard use such data.
Cities: Similarly, a number of local jurisdictions have also begun to pass laws regarding the use of pricing algorithms in residential rental markets. At least four cities have already adopted similar bans: the city of Providence, Rhode Island passed legislation in May 2025; Minneapolis in April 2025; Philadelphia in November 2024; and San Francisco in October 2024.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Sarah Minson v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01675 (W.D. Wash.).
On Nov. 7, 2025, Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (Ulta Beauty) filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations, arguing the lawsuit violates Washington law. Washington law prohibits employers from restricting employees who earn less than twice the state minimum wage from working a second job unless it implicates the duty of loyalty, conflict of interest, safety, or scheduling concern. The plaintiff alleged that Ulta Beauty’s code of conduct, which addresses “conflicts of interest,” violates Washington law by preventing low-wage employees from taking additional jobs. Ulta Beauty responded that the code of conduct is “nonbinding guidance,” not a contract, and that its terms do not categorically restrict employees from holding any second job, but instead allows Ulta Beauty to make a case-by-case determination.
2. Helium Financial Group LLC v. Roshan Weeramantry, No. 2:25-cv-02198 (W.D. Wash.).
On Nov. 5, 2025, Helium Financial Group LLC filed a lawsuit against two former employees, alleging that they stole Helium’s trade secrets to start their own wealth management firm and unfairly compete with Helium. Among other things, Helium seeks damages for violations of Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract, and interference with Helium’s business relationships. The trade secrets at issue consist of Helium’s client database, proprietary data sets, financial metrics, internal formulas and algorithms, and a new modeling system called “Brightline,” used for acquiring and managing partnerships between Helium and outside advisers.
3. In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.).
On Nov. 6, 2025, the defendants—polyvinyl chloride pipe manufacturers—in a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims after having entered into settlements with each class. The remaining purchaser plaintiffs allege that the defendants used an industry publication—PVC & Pipe Weekly—to conspire to increase prices starting in 2020. The defendants argued in the motion to dismiss that these allegations do not plausibly show any per se price-fixing conspiracy because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that this kind of information sharing does not violate the Sherman Act, but instead constitutes a procompetitive exchange of information. See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 441 n. 16 (1978). Defendants also argued the plaintiffs have not alleged any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to show that the defendants had a “conscious commitment” to a “common scheme” to fix PVC pipe prices, despite having had access to “thousands of emails, notes, and text messages.” For instance, the defendants point out that the plaintiffs’ 520+ page complaints alleged “zero communications with or between Defendants reflecting an agreement on PVC pipe prices.”
4. In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724, and In Re: Pravastatin Cases, Lead Case No. 2:16-md-02724 (E.D. Pa.).
On Oct. 31, 2025, the plaintiffs in a multidistrict litigation, alleging the existence of a generic drug price-fixing scheme, filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of pharmacies, all of which indirectly purchased the cholesterol medication pravastatin. The pharmacies seek to recover damages for the alleged unlawful overcharges that resulted. More specifically, these indirect reseller plaintiffs allege that four defendants made up 99% of the market and entered into an anticompetitive agreement in May 2013 that resulted in the price of pravastatin skyrocketing more than 1000%. These defendants then allegedly overcharged the pharmacies for pravastatin, which in turn forced some pharmacies to close across the country, particularly in rural areas.
Mexico
New Configuration of Federal Administrative Courts and Tribunals Specialized in Economic Competition and Broadcasting
In September 2025, the Judicial Branch of the Federation (PJF) formalized the new composition of federal courts specializing in economic competition, broadcasting, and telecommunications, implementing the judicial reform approved in 2024. For the first time, judges and magistrates in these specialized areas were selected through popular elections, as well as appointments by the Judicial Administration Body (OAJ), which replaced the Federal Judiciary Council.
The official secondments were published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on Sept. 12, 2025. The current composition of the specialized courts and tribunals is presented below, including the professional backgrounds of their presiding officials.
1. Specialized District Courts.
The three District Courts in Administrative Matters Specialized in Economic Competition, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications are located in Mexico City and have national jurisdiction. Its incumbents were elected in June 2025.
First Specialized Court
Lucero Grisel Martínez Encarnación: Encarnación has a law degree from the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo and a master’s degree in constitutional procedural law from the Universidad Panamericana. She specializes in human rights, constitutional justice, and economic regulation in national and international institutions. She held management positions at the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT) and worked on administrative procedures, supervising economic agents, and asymmetric regulation.
Second Specialized Court
María Fernanda Hernández Andión: Andión has a law degree from the Universidad Anáhuac México Norte, with a master's degrees in telecommunications law and constitutional procedural law from the Universidad Panamericana. She has worked in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and in specialized district courts, preparing draft judgments and managing jurisdictional matters.
Third Specialized Court
Ernesto Sinuhe Castillo Torres: Torres has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in law from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) and specializes in constitutional law. He held positions at the Federal Economic Competition Commission and the IFT, related to investigation procedures and legal defense of regulatory acts. He taught procedural, commercial, and constitutional law.
2. Specialized Collegiate Courts.
The integration of the Collegiate Courts in Administrative Matters Specialized in Economic Competition, Broadcasting, and Telecommunications was carried out through the electoral process and OAJ internal appointments.
First Collegiate Court
Paula María García Villegas Sánchez Cordero: Cordero has Ph.D. in law from UNAM, a master’s from London School of Economics and Political Science, as well as a bachelor of law and economics (UNAM and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México). She held jurisdictional positions in the PJF and participated in publications on constitutional reforms.
Eugenio Reyes Contreras: Contreras holds a doctorate degree in law and a master’s in tax law, with a specialization in amparo and has experience in collegiate courts in criminal, administrative, and economic competition matters.
María Valdés Leal (magistrate elected by popular vote): Leal holds a law degree from Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) and a master’s in women’s, gender, and citizenship studies from the University of Barcelona. She worked in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and in collegiate courts in administrative matters.
Second Collegiate Court
Arturo Iturbe Rivas: Rivas holds a doctorate degree in law from UNAM, with experience in collegiate administration, labor courts, and constitutional and administrative law.
Urbano Martínez Hernández: Hernández has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in law and a doctorate in criminal sciences, with experience in collegiate courts specializing in economic competition, broadcasting, and telecommunications.
Jenny Solís Vences: Vences has a degree in law from UNAM, with administrative and jurisdictional experience at the PJF and training in judicial ethics and administrative management.
3. Specialized Collegiate Courts of Appeal.
The composition of the specialized courts of appeal includes elected judges and magistrates appointed by the OAJ.
Specialized Court of Appeal
Karina Barrera Ortíz: Ortíz has a law degree from the UNAM, a master’s degree in public management from the CIDE, a master’s degree in constitutional and administrative law from the UNAM, and a Ph.D. in law from the UP. She has held positions in internal control bodies of federal agencies and in the Ministry of Public Administration.
Guadalupe Montiel Cuevas: Cuevas has a bachelor’s degree in law from the UAM and a master’s degree in economic law from Universidad Panamericana, with experience in the PJF, IFT, and in the private technology sector.
Monserrat Cid Cabello: Cabello has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in administrative law from Universidad Panamericana, with experience in jurisdictional management and in the specialized Collegiate Court of Appeal.
Second Collegiate Court of Appeal
Josué Moctezuma Valdez: Valdez has a bachelor’s degree in law from the UNAM, specializing in constitutional law, with experience in the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Public Administration.
María Luisa Cervantes Ayala: Ayala has a law degree from the UNAM and a master’s degree in adversarial justice from the Federal School of Judicial Training, with experience in administrative and civil courts and tribunals.
Jocelyn Montserrat Mendizabal Ferreyro: Ferreyro has a master’s degree in administrative law from UP, with experience in collegiate courts in labor and administrative matters.
Netherlands
Dutch Competition Authority (ACM)
1. ACM launches investigation into high grocery prices in Dutch supermarkets.
The ACM has launched an investigation into food prices in Dutch supermarkets following signals that certain grocery items are more expensive than in neighboring countries. The inquiry focuses on price formation and cost structures within the food supply chain, including the profit margins of both brand suppliers and supermarkets. By comparing Dutch prices with those in surrounding markets, the ACM aims to identify potential market inefficiencies or distortions that might explain the higher prices.
From a competition law perspective, the investigation is significant because it examines whether limited competition between supermarkets or suppliers’ restrictive practices might be driving up consumer prices. Depending on its findings, the ACM may issue policy recommendations or take enforcement action if anticompetitive conduct is detected. The results of the investigation are expected in summer 2026.
2. ACM launches investigation regarding international software company’s possible abuse of dominance.
The ACM launched an investigation into an international software company suspected of abusing its dominant position in the business market. The case concerns potentially excessive prices and unfair contractual conditions imposed on Dutch buyers who depend on the company’s software. Such conduct might restrict competition and harm businesses that have limited alternatives, ultimately resulting in higher costs and reduced innovation.
This investigation underscores the ACM’s growing focus on the digital economy and its enforcement priorities regarding market power in technology sectors. The ACM has already conducted a dawn raid and gathered information and will now assess whether this company has indeed violated the competition rules.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
UOKiK fines InGroup for prohibited cruise “consortium system.”
On Oct. 27, 2025, the UOKiK President issued a decision against InGroup International LLC (formerly InCruises International LLC) in relation to a travel program offered via the incruises.com platform, which was available to Polish consumers until 2023. The Authority found that the scheme infringed collective consumer interests and qualified as a prohibited “consortium system,” for which it imposed a fine of approximately PLN 5.3 million (approx. EUR 1.2 million/ USD 1.3 million). The decision was preceded by a public consumer warning the Authority issued during the proceedings. The UOKIK President may issue such warnings if there is particularly justified suspicion that the entrepreneur applies practices infringing collective consumer interests that may cause significant losses and negative effects for a wide group of consumers.
Under the program, consumers paid monthly instalments of USD 100 that were converted into “Cruise Dollars” at a 2:1 ratio and could be used to book cruises or other travel services. Access to the accumulated funds was heavily restricted: depending on the duration of their participation, members could initially use only a portion of their balance (60% after one year, 70% after two years, and 100% only after five years and payments totaling USD 4,900). If a member stopped paying, the account became inactive, Cruise Dollars might ultimately be forfeited, and reactivation required back payments. Membership was possible only via referral links. The Authority also highlighted that, under the “2-for-1” model, the ability to purchase cruises depended on other participants’ contributions and that a significant part of the funds collected was used to remunerate “independent partners” for recruiting new members, rather than financing travel services.
According to the UOKiK President, these features meant that InGroup effectively organized a group of consumers to finance the purchase of products for members while fully controlling their funds. Such a structure is characteristic of pyramid (or Ponzi) schemes, which are deemed unfair commercial practices. The investigation has been pending since mid-2022. During the proceedings, InGroup modified its model so that, as of the end of March 2023, partners from Poland and other countries may no longer sell the program to Polish residents or citizens, but this did not prevent the Authority from issuing the decision.
The decision is not yet final – InGroup may appeal against it to the court.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA launches investigation into DJI and Nital on suspected vertical agreement in the drone market.
On Oct. 29, 2025, ICA announced the opening of a formal investigation into DJI Europe B.V., the global leader in civilian drone manufacturing, and its Italian importer Nital S.p.A. The inquiry seeks to ascertain whether a vertical agreement violating Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) may have been implemented in the distribution of DJI’s professional “enterprise” drones in the Italian market.
According to the Authority’s preliminary findings, DJI and Nital are alleged to have engaged in resale price maintenance (RPM) by imposing fixed resale prices on their domestic network of distributors. According to ICA, retailers’ deviations from the price list published on Nital’s website were monitored and retailers who failed to comply reportedly faced warnings regarding the use of DJI’s distinctive signs and, in some cases, threats of supply termination.
Moreover, DJI and Nital allegedly sought to restrict parallel imports from abroad, thereby limiting Italian resellers’ ability to source cheaper stock and use price discounting as a competitive strategy. The ICA notes that the system under investigation may constitute a “by-object” within the meaning of Article 4(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 720/2022.
2. ICA launches investigation into Philip Morris Italia for possible unfair commercial practice.
On Oct. 15, 2025, ICA initiated a formal inquiry into Philip Morris Italia S.p.A. (PMI) regarding the commercial promotion of its “smoke-free” products. In particular, PMI employed expressions such as “without smoke” (“senza fumo”), “a future without smoke” (“un futuro senza fumo”) and “smoke-free products” (“prodotti senza fumo”) in its marketing.
According to ICA, the advertising campaign may be misleading or insufficiently clear for consumers, as they refer to products that are not absent from health risks or addictive potential, or less harmful than others.
European Union
A. European Commission
1. European Commission opens in-depth investigation into MMG’s acquisition of Anglo American’s nickel business.
The European Commission has opened a detailed investigation into MMG’s proposed purchase of Anglo American’s nickel operations in Brazil. The European Commission is concerned that the deal might allow MMG, which China Minmetals Corporation controls, to divert ferronickel supplies away from Europe, leading to higher costs and reduced quality in European stainless-steel production.
The European Commission found that the target holds strong market power in the concentrated low-carbon ferronickel market and that MMG’s proposed behavioral remedies failed to address these risks. The investigation will continue until March 20, 2026.
2. European Commission conducts unannounced inspections in the ski equipment sector.
The European Commission has carried out unannounced inspections at several companies active in the ski equipment sector, suspecting potential breaches of Article 101 TFEU. Officials from national competition authorities assisted in these inspections. These unannounced inspections mark an initial step in examining suspected anticompetitive conduct.
3. European Commission conditionally approves Boeing’s acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems.
The European Commission has conditionally approved Boeing’s proposed acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems under the EU Merger Regulation. The European Commission had concerns that the acquisition would harm competition in the global markets for aerostructures and large commercial aircraft, particularly by allowing Boeing to restrict supplies to Airbus or gain access to sensitive commercial information.
To address these concerns, Boeing committed to divesting all Spirit businesses that currently supply Airbus, including related assets and staff, to Airbus, and Spirit’s Malaysian site to Composites Technology Research Malaysia (CTRM). These divestments aim to ensure Airbus secures its supply chain and introduce CTRM as a new market player. This divestment package adequately addressed the European Commission’s concerns.
4. The European Commission investigates Sanofi over possible antitrust breaches in flu vaccines.
The European Commission has carried out unannounced inspections at Sanofi’s premises in France and Germany, examining potential abuses of a dominant market position in the seasonal flu vaccine sector. The investigation focuses on possible exclusionary practices that might restrict competition.
Sanofi stated that it is confident in its compliance with EU rules and will fully cooperate. National competition authorities accompanied European Commission officials during the inspections, which mark a preliminary step in assessing potential anticompetitive conduct.
B. European Court Decision
CJEU upholds Teva and Cephalon reverse-payment settlement.
On Oct. 23, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Cephalon’s appeal of the European Commission’s 2020 decision finding that their 2005 settlement agreement on modafinil infringed Article 101 TFEU. The agreement included non-compete and non-challenge clauses and involved payments from Cephalon to Teva. The European Commission had concluded that these payments served solely to induce Teva not to compete, restricting competition by object, and imposed fines of €30 million on Teva and €30.48 million on Cephalon.
The CJEU confirmed that the General Court correctly assessed the settlement agreement as a whole, noting that transfers of value are only justified if they compensate legitimate costs or services. It furthermore found that counterfactual analysis does not convert an object restriction into an effects-based test.
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.