Industries

In the latest instalment of Cleary Gottlieb’s Antitrust Review podcast, host Nick Levy is joined by Teresa Ribera, the European Commission’s Executive Vice-President for a Clean, Just, and Competitive Transition. Their conversation, held in front of a live audience in New York at the Fordham Corporate Law Institute’s 52nd Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, covers an array of topics, including the objectives of antitrust, sustainability, EU merger control, the Draghi Report, digital regulation, international cooperation, and much more.

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 September 8, 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of around €172,000 on Eurofield SAS and its parent company, Unanime Sport SAS, for providing incomplete information during an ongoing antitrust investigation. This marks the first time the Commission has imposed a fine for the provision of incomplete information in reply to a request for information (“RFI”) in the context of an antitrust procedure.[1] The Commission announced it “will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future.” [2]

The Paris Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeals”) has issued its ruling on damages in the Plavix follow-on action brought by France’s national health insurance fund (the “CNAM”) against Sanofi.[1] More than a decade after the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) found that Sanofi had engaged in disparagement practices constituting an abuse of dominant position, the Court awarded the CNAM €150.7 million, reflecting the long-term impact of Sanofi’s conduct. The judgment highlights the magnitude of potential damages in follow-on actions and illustrates how French courts evaluate long-lasting effects and the full-compensation principle.

On Friday, the Court in Texas v. Blackrock issued an opinion largely denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, which allows a coalition of States to proceed with claims that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard conspired to violate the antitrust laws by pressuring publicly traded coal companies to reduce output in connection with the investment firms’ ESG commitments. The Court found that the States plausibly alleged that defendants coordinated with one another, relying on allegations that they joined climate initiatives, made parallel public commitments, engaged with management of the public coal companies, and aligned proxy voting on disclosure issues. It is worth noting that, while the court viewed BlackRock’s, State Street’s, and Vanguard’s participation in Climate Action 100+ and NZAM as increasing the plausibility of the claim in favor of denying the motion to dismiss, the Court clarified that it was not opining that the parties conspired at Climate Action 100+ or NZAM.

On June 11, 2025, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) issued its first-ever decision[1] sanctioning no-poach agreements as stand-alone infringements.[2] Fines totaling EUR 29.5 million were imposed on three companies operating in the engineering, technology consulting, and IT services sectors.