In This Issue1
United States | Poland | Italy | European Union | Japan
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. 7-Eleven agrees to pay record $4.5 million to settle FTC prior-notice litigation.
The FTC approved a court settlement requiring 7-Eleven, Inc. and its parent company to pay $4.5 million to resolve allegations that they violated a 2018 FTC consent order by acquiring a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Florida, without providing required prior notice to the FTC. The prior consent resolved concerns with an earlier acquisition of fuel outlets with divestitures and the prior notice obligation. In addition to the civil penalty, the largest ever collected for a prior-notice violation, 7-Eleven must divest the St. Petersburg outlet and comply with enhanced prior approval and notice requirements for future acquisitions. The Commission authorized the settlement and entry of a permanent injunction by a 2–0 vote.
2. FTC responds to termination of Aya Healthcare–Cross Country Healthcare transaction.
The FTC stated that it identified significant competitive concerns with Aya Healthcare’s proposed acquisition of Cross Country Healthcare, which the parties terminated. According to the FTC, the transaction would have eliminated direct competition between two of the largest providers of software and services hospitals use to recruit and manage traveling nurses and other temporary healthcare workers. The Commission noted that further consolidation might have reduced options for healthcare workers, increased hospitals’ costs, and ultimately raised healthcare costs for patients. The FTC emphasized that it would continue to investigate and, when necessary, take enforcement action to protect competition in healthcare and labor markets.
B. U.S. Litigation
1. Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corp., No. 1:23-cv-01372 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2026).
Gibbs & Cox Inc., a Virginia based marine-engineering company, entered a settlement agreement to remove itself from a sprawling antitrust class-action suit. The case, brought on behalf of current and former naval architects and marine engineers, alleges that various competitors in military warship production utilized noncompete and no-poach agreements to limit employee mobility and prevent employees from obtaining higher salaries through new employment. Gibbs & Cox’s settlement, announced on Jan. 5, 2026, comes after the trial court initially dismissed the case based on statute of limitations, an order that the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. The remaining defendants in the case have filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the order dismissing the case.
2. BankUnited NA v. Sculick, No. 2025-0956 (D. Chanc. Jan. 5, 2026).
Also on Jan. 5, 2025, the Delaware Chancery Court denied BankUnited NA’s motion for a temporary restraining order that sought to bar its rival, Customers Bank, from recruiting BankUnited’s employees and title-services customers. BankUnited brought the suit after its former executives began work for Customers Bank, alleging that those executives were bound by non-solicitation agreements preventing them from soliciting both BankUnited’s customers and employees. In denying BankUnited’s request for an injunction, Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David held that BankUnited’s non-solicitation agreements were likely overbroad and therefore unenforceable.
3. New York attorney general sends demand letter requesting information from Instacart on its algorithmic pricing.
On Jan. 8, 2026, the New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office sent a letter warning online-grocery-shopping platform Instacart that its algorithmic pricing may be violating state antitrust laws. According to the letter, Instacart’s algorithmic pricing software led to different customers being charged as much as 23% more for the same product from the same store at the same time. Although Instacart has not yet formally responded to the letter, its spokesperson stated that Instacart suspended all item price testing in December and was in full compliance with New York’s Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act.
4. United States v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 5:25-cv-00951 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2026).
On Jan. 8, 2026, United States District Judge P. Casey Pitts denied a joint motion brought by several states’ enforcers who have intervened in the U.S. Department of Justice’s review of Hewlett Packard Enterprises (HPE)’s proposed integration with Juniper Networks. The DOJ had settled its investigation into anticompetitive effects on enterprise-grade wireless local area networking by requiring HPE to sell its version of enterprise-grade wireless to another competitor. According to Judge Casey, the states’ motion—called a “hold separate request”—sought to prevent HPE from integrating its business in all markets, not just the specific enterprise-grade market identified in the DOJ’s request. The court also noted that by the time the states intervened, the merger had already gone forward and much of the integration had already occurred, making it difficult to unwind that integration.
Poland
President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK President)
The Polish competition authority targets the agricultural sector by imposing fines on farm machinery producers and their dealers.
UOKiK recently issued two decisions concerning collusion in the sale of agricultural machinery:
- In decision no. DOK-4/2025, the authority fined Class Polska, a distributor of farm machinery, and five dealers. The total fines stand at PLN 170 million (approx. $46 million/€49 million);
- In decision no. DOK-5/2025, UOKiK fined CNH Industrial Polska (CNH) – a producer and distributor of New Holland, Case, and Steyr agricultural machinery – as well as seven dealers and two managers responsible for collusion. The total fines stand at PLN 340 million (approx. $93 million/€80 million).
The two cases have similarities and involve market-sharing arrangements reinforced by price coordination. According to UOKiK, the infringing parties agreed to restrict passive sales to customers located outside the territory assigned to a given dealer by referring them to another dealer or offering higher prices. UOKiK noted that distributors coordinated the scheme, whereas dealers actively participated in the collusion by sharing information and complaining about infringements of the terms of the collusion.
UOKiK has not yet finalized its decisions, which impacted parties may appeal to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK). As a reminder, under Polish competition law, anticompetitive practices may result in fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover and up to PLN 2 million for individuals found responsible.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. ICA fines Ryanair €255.8 million for abuse of dominant position.
On Dec. 23, 2025, the ICA fined Ryanair DAC, jointly and severally with its parent company Ryanair Holdings plc, €255.8 million for abuse of a dominant position in the market for scheduled passenger air transport services to and from Italy. The ICA found that Ryanair has held a dominant position since at least April 2023, with market shares of approximately 38–40% of passengers on Italian domestic and European routes, reinforced by structural advantages allowing it to operate largely independently of competitors and consumers.
According to ICA, Ryanair implemented an exclusionary strategy aimed at limiting the ability of online travel agencies (OTAs) and traditional travel agencies to sell Ryanair flights, particularly in combination with flights that other carriers and additional tourism or insurance services operate. The conduct included introducing facial recognition procedures for agency-related bookings, partially or totally blocking OTA bookings through technical and payment restrictions, and deleting accounts linked to agency sales. In a later phase, Ryanair imposed partnership agreements containing restrictive terms, while exerting pressure on non-signatory agencies through repeated booking blocks and public communications portraying them as “pirate OTAs.”
ICA noted that Ryanair only made a full white-label iFrame solution in April 2025, finally enabling application programming interface integration, which may allow effective competition to be restored. Until that point, the ICA found that Ryanair’s conduct unlawfully restricted competition.
2. ICA fines cast iron cartel €70 million.
On Dec. 31, 2025, ICA closed its investigation into a cartel in the Italian market for its sale of cast irons, involving several major iron foundries and the trade association Assofond.
ICA found that the companies coordinated their commercial strategies in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) from at least Feb. 5, 2004, until June 30, 2024. The conduct consisted of exchanging sensitive commercial information and jointly developing price indexation mechanisms (the so-called “Assofond Indicators”), aimed at supporting price increase requests, strengthening bargaining power vis-à-vis customers, and preserving profit margins, particularly during periods of economic difficulty.
Given the seriousness and duration of the infringement, the statutory fine cap amounted to approximately €600 million. Taking into account the crisis affecting the sector, ICA imposed reduced fines totaling €70 million on the parties involved, including both the foundries and Assofond.
European Union
European Commission
European Commission sanctions automotive starter battery manufacturers and association cartel.
The European Commission has fined automotive starter battery manufacturers Exide, FET (including its predecessor Elettra) and Rombat, as well as the trade association EUROBAT, a total of around €72 million for participating in a cartel in breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. The infringement concerned anticompetitive agreements and concerted practices lasting more than 12 years, related to the sale of automotive starter batteries to car and truck manufacturers in the EEA.
According to the European Commission, the manufacturers, assisted by EUROBAT, coordinated the creation and use of so-called “EUROBAT premiums” that lead to procurement costs and applied them in negotiations with original equipment manufacturer customers, ensuring that customers paid higher surcharges than would have prevailed under normal competition. While surcharges can be legitimate, the European Commission stressed that secret coordination to standardize them across an industry is unlawful by object. Clarios received full immunity under the leniency program for revealing the cartel, while other participants received reduced fines for cooperation.
Japan
A. Mobile Software Competition Act (MSCA): final steps before enforcement
Japan’s MSCA came into force on Dec. 18, 2025, marking a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for mobile platforms. The Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications have finalized subordinate regulations and guidelines following public consultation earlier this year.
The government has designated major providers of mobile operating systems and app stores as specified providers, which makes them subject to new requirements related to app distribution processes, in-app payment rules, data use policies, and restrictions on self-preferencing. In particular, the MSCA prohibits discriminatory treatment of third-party developers, requires them to apply platform rules consistently, and to refrain from providing undue advantages to the provider’s own apps or affiliated services. The government designed these obligations in an effort to ensure predictability for developers and to prevent practices that may distort competition.
The MSCA aligns Japan with global trends toward platform regulation, and its requirements compare to the EU Digital Markets Act and similar initiatives in the United States and Asia.
B. Fair Transactions Act (Amended Subcontracting Act): practical points ahead of Jan. 1. 2026
Building on our coverage of the amended Subcontracting Act — renamed the Fair Transactions Act — in the last edition of GT’s Competition Currents newsletter, this section highlights practical considerations as the law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026. Throughout late 2025, the JFTC conducted nationwide outreach to clarify enforcement expectations for both large enterprises and SMEs.
Key changes effective in 2026 include:
- Prohibition on promissory notes: companies must transition to electronic or cash-based payment methods for covered transactions, as the use of promissory notes or bills of exchange is now prohibited.
- Stricter rules on price determination: businesses must engage in proper consultations with subcontractors when determining payments, and unilateral determination without necessary explanation or information is prohibited.
- Expanded documentation and disclosure obligations: contracting businesses must provide necessary written information, including via electronic means, regardless of the subcontractor’s explicit consent.
- Enhanced coordination with authorities: the Subcontracting Act establishes new provisions for guidance and advice from relevant administrative agencies and for inter-agency information sharing. The JFTC, in cooperation with ministries such as the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and local governments, will strengthen monitoring and oversight across industries.
Given the practical implications for procurement, supply chain management, and internal controls, companies may need to complete necessary reviews and system updates before year-end. Foreign companies with Japanese subsidiaries or suppliers may also need to ensure that payment practices, contract documentation, and negotiation procedures align with the amended requirements.
C. Early enforcement trends under the Freelance and Small Business Transaction Optimization Act
With the first full year of enforcement underway, there is an emerging enforcement trend under the Freelance and Small Business Transaction Optimization Act (Act No. 25 of 2023) relating to freelance employees. In 2024, the JFTC conducted a large‑scale survey targeting approximately 30,000 commissioning businesses in industries that frequently report issues. Based on survey findings and information submitted through formal reports, the JFTC focused additional investigations on sectors with significant freelancer engagement, particularly broadcasting and advertising. As of October 2025, the JFTC issued corrective guidance to 128 businesses pursuant to Article 22 of the law.
In connection with these investigations, the JFTC released interpretive points concerning Article 5, which sets out the basic prohibitions applicable to commissioning businesses that contract freelancers on a continuing basis. Article 5 prohibits practices such as unjustified refusal to accept deliverables, unilateral reductions in agreed remuneration, returning deliverables without legitimate grounds, setting unduly low compensation, and imposing forced purchases of goods or services. It further prohibits unjustified changes to the scope of work and requiring rework without the freelancer being responsible for any defects.
These developments illustrate the JFTC’s approach to integrating the Act with broader frameworks under the Subcontracting Act and the Anti-Monopoly Act, particularly with respect to abuse of superior bargaining position.
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.