In This Issue1
United States | The Netherlands | Poland | Italy | European Union
United States
A. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. PepsiCo price discrimination suit dropped.
On May 22, 2025, the FTC voted 3-0 to voluntarily dismiss a Robinson-Patman Act case in the Southern District of New York against PepsiCo, Inc., which involved allegations of unlawful price discrimination among Pepsi’s customers. The original complaint had been issued by a 3-2 vote on Jan. 17, 2025, with then-Commissioner (now Chair) Ferguson and Commissioner Holyoak dissenting. Their dissents criticized the matter as rushed due to the change of administration and lacking evidence of a violation.
2. Warning letters “renewed” for FDA Orange Book drug listings.
On May 21, 2025, the FTC issued warning letters to several pharmaceutical manufacturers as a follow-up to letters sent under the Biden administration. These warning letters dispute the appropriateness of more than 200 patents spanning 17 brand-name drugs listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations database, commonly known as the “Orange Book.” The FTC’s stated concern is that the alleged improper listing of patents may delay generic entry under the FDA’s process and keep drug prices higher. A recent Federal Circuit decision upholding a lower court order to delist improperly listed patents, consistent with an FTC amicus brief, prompted the current FTC action.
B. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Antitrust Division
1. DOJ approves first merger settlement under the new administration.
On June 2, 2025, the DOJ announced a divestiture settlement that would allow Keysight Technologies, Inc. to acquire Spirent Communications PLC after divesting Spirent’s high-speed ethernet, network security, and radio frequency channel emulation business to California-based Viavi Solutions, Inc. The DOJ alleged that the parties accounted for 50%-80% of the respective markets for these products. The settlement allows the DOJ to reopen proceedings to seek additional relief within five years if it determines the alleged violations have not been fully addressed, but it also allows the DOJ to terminate the obligations within that same period if it determines they are no longer necessary or in the public interest.
2. Antitrust Division DAAG Rinner speaks on merger review process policy.
On June 4, 2025, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bill Rinner spoke at a conference in Washington, D.C., about the current administration’s approach to merger reviews. Consistent with other leadership comments, Rinner stressed the importance of a predictable process and remedy settlements’ valid role in enforcement. Notably, beyond reaffirming a preference for structural (divestiture) remedies, Rinner also stated that “[t]here may be times in which limited behavioral remedies buttress genuine structural relief.” Turning the page from prior procedural practices, Rinner also asserted that the DOJ: (1) will not issue perfunctory “close at your own risk” letters when declining to take enforcement action; (2) will pursue remedies narrowly tailored to competition concerns, rather than addressing issues that are primarily related to policy objectives; and (3) will keep investigations focused, not issuing unrelated requests with the goal of building other investigations. That said, Rinner also indicated that the DOJ will be aggressive against parties’ deficiencies, abuse of privilege claims, and cases of “withholding or altering documents required by the HSR Act.”
3. FTC and DOJ file joint statement in state enforcement litigation regarding ESG collusion.
On May 22, 2025, the FTC and DOJ filed a statement of interest in an antitrust case several states brought against certain institutional investors alleging that the investors engaged in an unlawful anticompetitive agreement to reduce coal production through certain shareholder advocacy activity. The statement weighs in at the motion to dismiss stage, taking issue with defendants’ alleged use of the antitrust law regarding acquisitions (Clayton Act Section 7) as a shield; arguments about evidence sufficient to prove an unlawful agreement; and suggestion that anticompetitive harm is necessarily lacking if overall output increased.
C. U.S. Litigation
1. Stephens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 2:25-cv-01650 (D. Ariz. May 15, 2025).
On May 15, 2025, a proposed consumer class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, claiming the American Arbitration Association (AAA) monopolizes the market for consumer arbitration and is “an unfair forum where consumers lose” to corporate defendants. The complaint states that the AAA has a monopoly power in the consumer arbitration market in the United States and has “willfully maintained its monopoly power through its course of anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct.” According to the complaint, that conduct includes cut-rate pricing, practices capping arbitration compensation in consumer cases, and using rules that provide fewer rights to discovery.
2. U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution Inc., et al. v. Living Essentials et al., No. 2:18-cv-01077, 2025 WL 1513438 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2025).
On May 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall ruled that family-owned wholesalers had failed to prove anticompetitive harm, rejecting their argument that 5-Hour Energy maker Living Essentials LLC’s argument that Living Essentials’ practice of selling to a national wholesaler with better promotions can be considered “proportionally equal” to the lower value offers it gave to other wholesalers. The judge also ruled that it was not enough for the wholesalers to identify price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act; the wholesalers must prove that Living Essentials’ conduct threatened their ability to compete with the national wholesaler for sales of 5-Hour Energy by showing that “their ‘failure to receive an advertising allowance . . . enabled [the national wholesaler] to lower its prices and divert sales’” or that the wholesalers had to lower their prices to unprofitable levels. Id. at *5 (quoting Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 737 (9th Cir. 1987)). The judge denied the wholesalers’ bid for injunctive relief.
3. Whalen v. Epiq Systems et al., No. 1:25-cv-04499 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2025); Whalen et al. v. Epiq Systems Inc. et al., No. 3:25-cv-04522 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2025); Tejon v. Epiq Systems Inc. et al., No. 1:25-cv-22453 (N.D. Fla. May 29, 2025).
Three identical lawsuits filed in New York, California, and Florida federal courts on May 28 and 29 accuse settlement administration companies Epiq Systems Inc., Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of conspiring with Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank to increase administration costs and depress the payouts in thousands of class actions in exchange for millions of dollars of allegedly undisclosed kickbacks. The New York complaint alleges the administrator-defendants are three of the largest providers of class action settlement administration services in the United States, collectively controlling over 65% of the “administrator market,” and that the bank defendants control over 80% of the settlement funds in class actions in the United States. Since at least 2021, according to the complaint, the administrator-defendants have agreed to increase the cost of class action administration services and had the bank-defendants pay the administrator-defendants as a kickback the interest and investments earned on settlement deposits that should have been distributed to class members.
4. In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:16-md-02724, 2025 WL 1550100 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2025).
On May 29, U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe approved a settlement in which Apotex Corporation will pay $5.2 million to settle claims from a class of indirect purchasers alleging the drugmaker agreed with other pharmaceutical companies to increase the price of certain generic medications. A DOJ probe into the pharmaceutical industry prompted multiple lawsuits against various pharmaceutical companies allegedly involved in price-fixing. These suits have been working through the court system since 2016 and were consolidated into multidistrict litigation in Pennsylvania federal court. Judge Rufe noted in her order: “Negotiations occurred at arm’s length over a significant period of time and there has been extensive discovery in the MDL, enabling class counsel to develop enough information about the litigation to appreciate sufficiently the value of the claims.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mexico
COFECE Makes Public 4 Investigations Initiated in 2024 in Accordance with Legal Provisions
Within the deadlines established in the Federal Economic Competition Law (LFCE), the Investigative Authority (AI) of the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) announced four investigations into possible anticompetitive practices across various sectors in Mexico via the Official Gazette of the Federation.
As a result of ongoing intelligence and market monitoring, the AI identified indications of potentially anti-competitive practices during the last quarter of 2024, leading to the initiation of three ex-officio investigations. Additionally, a complaint received during this period prompted a fourth investigation.
The four investigations are:
1. Ex Officio Investigation, No. IO-003-2024: Possible illegal agreements regarding chemical additives for construction
The AI is investigating whether competitors have made illegal agreements in the production, marketing, or distribution of chemical additives used in construction materials such as cement, mortar, and concrete.
These alleged agreements may increase prices or limit access to products used in the sector, which is critical for Mexico’s economic growth and public welfare.
2. Ex Officio Investigation, No. IO-004-2024: Possible illegal agreements in public insurance procurement.
The AI is investigating whether companies participating in public tenders for insurance contracts have engaged in illegal agreements.
These alleged agreements may have increased procurements costs, affecting the efficient use of public funds and limiting resources for other government activities, such as social programs.
3. Ex Officio Investigation, No. IO-005-2024: Possible illicit concentration in the lime market.
The AI is investigating whether an illicit concentration has occurred in the market for producing, distributing, and commercializing limes and related products in Mexico.
The AI conducts this type of investigation when companies may have completed transactions without properly notifying the authorities. Such transactions may be anticompetitive.
4. Investigation Initiated by Complaint, No. DE-021-2024: Possible abuse of dominant position in real estate transactions.
The AI is investigating whether companies are preventing or restricting competitors from accessing digital platforms – commonly known as multiple listing services – for real estate. These platforms allow for listing, buying, selling, or renting properties and help real estate agents and companies share information.
The investigations are currently in the fact-gathering stage. Under LFCE, the investigations neither presume nor identify any responsible parties at this stage. If evidence indicating an LFCE violation is found, the AI may initiate an appropriate proceeding. The AI invites any person or entity to report relevant information to the COFECE. Whistleblowers are protected under COFECE’s Programa de Inmunidad y Reducción de Sanciones.
Poland
A. Price-Fixing and Market Sharing in the Flooring Industry Under UOKiK Scrutiny
On May 21, 2025, the President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) launched antitrust proceedings against flooring manufacturer Decora S.A., its key distributor Bel-Pol Sp. z o.o., and two managers for suspected anticompetitive practices involving vinyl panels and related accessories. According to UOKiK, Decora engaged in resale price maintenance (RPM) by dictating both regular and promotional retail prices to wholesalers and retailers. Retailers who offered lower prices allegedly faced retaliatory measures such as reduced discounts or suspended deliveries. Distributors may also have reported deviations from the pricing policy to Decora.
Additionally, the UOKiK President alleges that Decora and Bel-Pol may have participated in a market-sharing arrangement under which each party refrained from supplying certain wholesale customers, thereby restricting competition and limiting consumer choice in the home improvement sector.
Under Polish competition law, companies may face fines of up to 10% of annual turnover, while the individuals responsible may face personal fines of up to PLN 2 million.
B. Bathroom Equipment Manufacturer Investigated for Alleged RPM Practices
On May 5, 2025, the UOKiK President launched antitrust proceedings against Radaway Sp. z o.o., a bathroom equipment manufacturer and wholesaler, along with one of its senior managers. According to UOKiK, starting in 2016, Radaway may have imposed RPM on independent online retailers of its branded products, including shower cubicles, trays, bath screens, and drains.
According to UOKiK, Radaway monitored retail prices and discouraged deviations from its pricing policy by threatening to withdraw discounts or restrict supply. Online retailers may also have reported competitor pricing to Radaway, contributing to policing of the pricing policy. If proven, the alleged conduct may eliminate price competition between online retailers, depriving consumers of access to more competitive offers when fitting out or renovating bathrooms.
Under Polish competition law, engaging in a vertical price-fixing agreement can result in a fine of up to 10% of the company’s annual turnover, while individuals responsible may face personal fines of up to PLN 2 million.
C. UOKiK Continues to Focus on Overdue Payment Practices
On May 12, 2025, the UOKiK President imposed fines on two companies—Rawicka Fabryka Wyposażenia Wagonów (Rawag) and Carlsberg Supply Company Polska—for excessively delaying payments to their business partners. The fines amounted to over PLN 291,000 (approx. USD 77,700 / EUR 68,500) and PLN 69,000 (approx. USD 18,400 / EUR 16,200), respectively. The case concerned over 16,000 invoices issued to 1,287 business partners, with more than 2,800 overdue payments affecting 322 suppliers. Both companies accepted the findings and paid the imposed fines.
In a related development, the UOKiK President initiated proceedings against another company for failure to provide the requested information in a timely manner—an infringement that may result in a fine of up to 5% of the company’s annual turnover but not exceeding EUR 50 million.
Alongside formal enforcement, UOKiK continues to apply “soft interventions.” Since the beginning of 2025, over 80 warnings have been issued to companies exhibiting potentially harmful payment practices as part of UOKiK’s ongoing efforts to improve payment discipline in the Polish market.
Italy
Italian Competition Authority (ICA)
1. Revocation of 2015 remedial commitments: ICA’s decision on the legitimacy of an autonomous system in plastic packaging recycling.
On April 15, 2025, the ICA revoked certain commitments made in a longstanding antitrust case involving CONAI (National Packaging Consortium) and COREPLA (Consortium for the Recycling of Plastic). The case, which began in 2014, centers on the “PARI autonomous system” developed by Aliplast. This system enables the company to conduct recycling activities independently, without relying on the infrastructures and services provided by CONAI and COREPLA. Aliplast submitted a complaint alleging the consortia abused their dominant position by engaging in exclusionary practices intended to hinder Aliplast’s market access.
In 2015, ICA accepted a set of binding commitments from the consortia, including transparency obligations, the appointment of an independent trustee, and criteria for determining the financial contributions of autonomous systems.
Since then, regulatory reforms—notably the 2024 amendments to the Environmental Consolidated Act (TUA), specifically Article 224—have formally recognized autonomous systems and allowed them to negotiate directly with public entities, reducing the consortia’s central role. On April 15, 2025, the ICA concluded that the 2015 commitments could be revoked because the current regulatory framework now incorporates structural safeguards and institutional mechanisms to ensure competitive neutrality. Specifically, the trustee’s role is now considered obsolete, the access fee to CONAI is defined by law and negotiable with the National Association of Italian Municipalities, and the presence of several autonomous systems in the market ensures transparency without the need for additional obligations.
2. ICA closes proceeding against Sky Italy S.r.l. for unfair commercial practices.
On April 15, 2025, the ICA closed its investigation into Sky Italy S.r.l. for alleged unfair commercial practice. The investigation, which began on June 21, 2024, was prompted by complaints that the company—active in the production and distribution of paid digital television channels—had violated the Consumer Code by restricting consumers’ ability to withdraw from or modify subscription contracts. Specifically, Sky allegedly designed its website and mobile applications in ways that made it difficult for consumers to manage their subscriptions. Additionally, Sky was accused of manipulating search engine results to direct consumers to telephone support channels, which were often ineffective or unresponsive.
On Jan. 21, 2025, Sky proposed structural and functional improvements to all digital interfaces used by consumers to withdraw from or modify subscriptions, including the corporate website, self-service portal, mobile applications, and search engine advertising. The ICA found the commitments sufficient to address the competitive and consumer protection concerns raised. The improvements aim to offer greater transparency, accessibility, and usability of online cancellation procedures, and to provide clearer information on the steps required to complete such requests. Sky has 60 days to implement the agreed-upon commitments.
3. ICA closes proceeding against Enel Energia S.p.A. for unfair commercial practices.
On April 24, 2025, the ICA closed its proceedings against Enel Energia S.p.A. after accepting the company’s proposed commitments. The proceedings began in April 2024, following numerous consumer reports alleging that Enel failed to provide adequate information about the renewal of the economic conditions of their electricity and gas supply contracts. These communications, sent via email, were sometimes filtered into spam folders or perceived as promotional content, hindering customers’ ability to terminate their contracts.
During the proceedings, Enel submitted a set of commitments, which were finalized on Jan. 15, 2025. These commitments consisted of three principal measures:
a. Informational communication: Enel established a multi-platform notification and reminder system (via SMS, email, app notifications, online customer area, and billing communication) to clearly inform customers both before and after the effective date of the new contractual conditions.
b. Enhanced customer support: Enel improved its front-end information system and provided training to customer service representatives to provide accurate information regarding the economic terms and the delivery status of the renewal communications.
c. Compensatory measures: Enel introduced an economic compensation mechanism, offering bonuses or credit notes to customers who experienced price increases without receiving adequate notice. The compensation, equal to 25–50% of the difference between the old and new tariffs, is estimated to cover between 40,000 and 100,000 supply contracts, with a total value ranging from EUR 5 million to EUR 11 million.
Enel is required to provide status updates to the ICA within both 30 and 90 days of the implementation and to confirm full implementation within 180 days.
European Union
A. European Commission
1. European Commission fines Delivery Hero and Glovo for online food-delivery market cartel.
The European Commission has fined Delivery Hero and Glovo a total of EUR 329 million for anticompetitive behavior. The EU Commission alleged the competitors entered into no-poach agreements for employees, exchanged commercially sensitive information, and allocated geographic markets for online food delivery services across the EEA from 2018 to 2022. Both companies admitted to their involvement and agreed to settle the case.
2. European Commission proposes signing of EU-UK Competition Cooperation Agreement.
The European Commission adopted proposals for the EU-UK Competition Cooperation Agreement. This proposed agreement aims to establish a formal framework for cooperation between the European Commission, EU Member States’ national competition authorities, and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority. Its main objectives are to enhance coordination in antitrust and merger investigations, facilitate information sharing (subject to confidentiality safeguards), and avoid jurisdictional conflicts.
The agreement expands upon the existing EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and reflects a shared commitment to competition enforcement, particularly in complex and fast-evolving sectors such as digital markets. Once ratified by both parties, the agreement is expected to provide legal certainty and clarify procedural guidelines for cross-border competition enforcement.
3. European Commission launches public consultation on review of EU Merger Guidelines.
The European Commission has initiated a public consultation to review and modernize the EU Merger guidelines, which have not been significantly updated since 2004 for horizontal mergers and 2008 for non-horizontal mergers. The review seeks to update the analytical framework to reflect contemporary economic considerations, including digitalization, innovation, and resilience, and aims to develop clearer, more predictable, and legally robust merger control guidelines. Public comments are due by Sept. 3, 2025.
B. CJEU Decisions
1. Clarification on preliminary questions regarding parallel obligations.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on the interpretation of Article 4(b)(i) of the now-repealed Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (Regulation (EU) 330/2010). The case involves a dispute between Beevers Kaas in Belgium and Luxembourg, and Albert Heijn, who sells Beevers Kaas in other markets. Beevers Kaas alleged that Albert Heijn infringed its exclusivity by selling in the protected territory, despite sourcing the product from the same supplier, Cono.
The Antwerp Appeal Court referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU, seeking guidance on when a supplier may validly restrict active sales into an exclusive territory. Specifically, the referring court asked whether the “parallel obligation” requirement (i.e., the obligation on the supplier to protect the exclusive distributor against active sales by other buyers) can demonstrate that there is an explicit or implicit agreement with all other purchasers in the exclusive area solely on the basis that other distributors do not, in practice, engage in active sales in the exclusive territory. The court also asked whether such protection must be continuous throughout the duration of the exclusivity.
The CJEU held that the mere absence of active sales by other distributors is insufficient to establish the existence of an “agreement” within the meaning of Article 101(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Instead, there must be proof of a mutual understanding, explicit or implicit, between the supplier and its other distributors that active sales into the exclusive territory are restricted. The CJEU emphasized that such an agreement cannot be inferred solely from passive conduct; rather, it must be supported by objective and consistent indications, such as a supplier’s express communication of the restriction or the existence of enforcement mechanisms.
Furthermore, the CJEU clarified that the benefit of the block exemption under Article 4(b)(i) VBER applies only for the period during which the supplier can demonstrate that the parallel obligation was effectively in place and accepted by the other distributors. This imposes a continuous evidentiary burden on suppliers seeking to rely on the exemption.
2. AG opinions on preliminary questions regarding reach of Meca-Medina case-law in sports regulation.
On May 15, 2025, Advocate General (AG) Emiliou delivered three coordinated opinions in cases C-209/23 (RRC Sports v. FIFA), C-428/23 (ROGON v. DFB), and C-133/24 (CD Tondela v. Portuguese Competition Authority), each addressing the compatibility of football-related regulatory measures with EU competition law and internal market rules.
In RRC Sports, the AG examined the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), which include licensing requirements, fee caps, restrictions on dual representation, and mandatory data disclosure. While acknowledging potential restrictions on competition, the AG found that the rules are not automatically unlawful. Instead, they must be assessed under the Meca-Medina framework, which requires that they pursue a legitimate public interest, be necessary, and be proportionate. Some provisions, such as the ban on contacting clients under exclusive contracts, may be inherently restrictive. Others, like the fee caps, require contextual analysis.
In ROGON, the AG addressed similar rules adopted by the German Football Association (DFB). He confirmed that the Meca-Medina test applies not only to rules governing the sport itself but also to those affecting upstream markets like agent services. Each rule must be assessed individually unless they form an inseparable whole. The opinion emphasizes that sports federations must justify the necessity and proportionality of their rules, even when acting in a regulatory capacity.
In CD Tondela, the AG considered a non-solicitation agreement among Portuguese football clubs during COVID-19. The agreement, which prevented clubs from hiring players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts, was not found to be a restriction by object. The AG emphasized its limited scope, temporary nature, and the context of preserving competition integrity during a crisis. He concluded that the agreement could be justified under Meca-Medina, provided it met the criteria of necessity and proportionality.
C. ECHR Decisions
On April 1, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the transmission of intercepted telephone data from criminal investigations to competition authorities does not violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy).
In the combined cases Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. The Netherlands, relating to two cartel investigations by the Dutch competition authority, the ECHR held by majority (12-5 and 10-7, respectively) that such transfers were legally permissible under Dutch law, provided they are necessary and proportionate. During the investigations, the Dutch competition authority used wiretap data obtained in unrelated criminal probes by the Public Prosecution Service, as the authority is not permitted to conduct wiretapping since cartels are not criminal offenses in the Netherlands.
The ECHR emphasized that the transmissions had clear legislative backing and met foreseeability and necessity conditions. Despite dissents concerning regulatory officials’ pre-authorization access and the broad scope of the domestic law, the majority concluded that the domestic judicial review sufficiently safeguarded the parties’ rights.
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.