On October 15, 2025, the French Cour de cassation (“Court”) confirmed a €680,000 fine on the trade union Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France (“CDF”) (“Decision”).[1] The Court held that the CDF’s call for a boycott of certain dental care networks constituted a restriction of competition by object within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU and Article L. 420-1 of the French Commercial Code.[2]
The French Cour de cassation confirms the FCA’s independence in settlement-referral procedures and classifies information exchanges between tenderers, including when exploring subcontracting, as a restriction by object.[1]
On September 24, 2025, the French Cour de cassation upheld the sanction imposed by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) on Vinci group entities active in construction and technical services, and on their subsidiary Santerne Nord Tertiaire (“Santerne”), for unlawful exchanges of confidential information during a public tender procedure.
On October 1, 2025, the General Court dismissed Laudamotion’s application for annulment of the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision rejecting a complaint that Lufthansa’s concurrent acquisition of flight slots previously held by Air Berlin and conclusion of a wet lease agreement for 40 Air Berlin aircrafts constituted an anticompetitive concertation in breach of Article 101 TFEU.[1] The General Court reconfirmed that to sustain an infringement finding, there can be no alternative plausible explanation for the alleged anticompetitive concertation.
On April 17, 2025, further to an appeal lodged by a competitor (Valocîme), the Conseil d’Etat upheld the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) decision[1] approving Phoenix Tower International (“PTI”) as purchaser of the passive mobile infrastructure assets which Cellnex had committed to divest as part of the FCA’s review of its acquisition of Hivory.[2] The Conseil d’Etat approved the FCA’s analysis of the independence of the proposed purchaser as well as the absence of new adverse competitive effects due to the purchaser’s acquisition of the divested assets.
Since the obligations under the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”) started to apply to the first wave of gatekeepers in March 2024, there have been a number of important developments on the implementation and enforcement of the DMA by the Commission.[1] In particular, the Commission has: (i) adopted a second wave of designation decisions concerning Apple and Booking Holdings Inc. (“BHI”), while exempting other services of Apple, ByteDance, X Holdings Corp., and Microsoft; (ii) defended appeals before the European courts concerning a number of its designation and non-designation decisions; (iii) launched whistleblower tools for the DMA and the Digital Services Act (“DSA”); and (iv) opened non-compliance investigations against Meta, Alphabet, and Apple as well as specification proceedings into Apple’s compliance with DMA interoperability obligations.
On December 5, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) clarified the scope of its judgment of June 27, 2024, referring back the assessment of TDF’s acquisition of Itas to the French Competition Authority (“FCA”).[2] The Court ruled that the referral was limited to further investigation, while the final decision would be taken by the Court of Appeals (not the FCA).
On September 3, 2024, in a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice – the EU’s highest court – ruled in favor of Illumina in its challenge to the EC’s unprecedented assertion of jurisdiction over a transaction that met no notification thresholds at either EU or Member State level.
On March 4, 2024, the Commission fined Apple €1.8 billion—its first ever antitrust fine imposed on Apple and third largest ever—for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (“iOS users”) through its App Store (“Decision”).[1]
On March 1, 2023, the French Cour de Cassation (i.e., the French Civil Supreme Court) upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ (“Court of Appeals”) judgment awarding Digicel €180 million in damages for harm suffered as a result of anticompetitive practices implemented by Orange from 2000 to 2006 in the mobile telephony sector in the French West Indies and Guyana. However, the Cour de Cassation quashed the Court of Appeals’ finding that interest on the damage award should run from April 1, 2003, given that the harm inflicted to Digicel had not fully materialized at that date.